Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

COVENT GARDEN MARKET BILL

As Amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

CLYDE NAVIGATION (SUPERANNUATION) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

GLASGOW CORPORATION (No. 2) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

Considered; to be read the Third time tomorrow.

CLYDE PORT AUTHORITY ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

Read a Second time; to be considered tomorrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF POWER

Pit Closures

Sir W. Anstruther-Gray: asked the Minister of Power if he will make a statement on pit closures, in the light of his correspondence with the Chairman of the National Coal Board in connection with the Question of the right hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian on 2nd November.

The Minister of Power (Mr. Frederick Lee): I propose to discuss this matter in the course of the debate on the Second Reading of the Coal Industry Bill on Thursday.

Sir W. Anstruther-Gray: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the letter sent to me by the Chairman of the Board was completely uninformative? Is he further aware that there is a feeling, certainly in

Scotland, that we are being kept very much in the dark about the extent of the proposed pit closures? Can he give us an undertaking that he will put the facts before us so that we may know whether or not we should endeavour to make representations?

Mr. Lee: I am surprised to hear this because, from what I have read in the Press, people seem to have been very well informed indeed, but certainly I will try to make the situation as clear as possible on Thursday.

Mr. Alison: asked the Minister of Power if he will make available to hon. Members in a White Paper the information on pit closures announced by divisional boards on Thursday, 18th November, 1965.

Mr. Frederick Lee: I think that it would be more appropriate for the information to be available in the Vote Office, and I have arranged this.

Mr. Alison: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I have seen this information and that half a dozen stapled foolscap sheets with a list of the collieries to be closed is hardly an adequate substitute for a comprehensive White Paper on the eve of an important debate on this matter? Is he aware that this situation will affect hundreds of constituencies? Will he think again and provide us with a White Paper with a full analysis of the closures as soon as possible?

Mr. Lee: I have received no such complaint until today. It certainly is not any objective of mine to leave people under any illusions about this. I will have a look at it again and, if necessary, see what I can do about it.

Mr. Peyton: I am encouraged by the right hon. Gentleman's attitude, but does he not realise that this is the first opportunity that the House of Commons has had of verbally complaining to him and we are now doing this? Will he bear in mind that the Bill that we are to consider on Thursday demands the writing off of £415 million and that in these circumstances the House of Commons is entitled in the national interest to the fullest possible information?

Mr. Lee: It may have escaped the hon. Gentleman's notice that in the last few


weeks we have published two White Papers, one on our general fuel policy and one specifically on colliery closures. I should have thought that the information contained in these White Papers dealt adequately with the points the hon. Gentleman is now raising.

Nationalised Industries (General Directions)

Sir R. Nugent: asked the Minister of Power to what extent it is his policy to direct the nationalised industries for which he is responsible to adopt policies other than those dictated by their commercial interests.

Mr. Frederick Lee: No occasion has arisen for me to issue a general direction. Where boards, in response to the Government's views, act otherwise than in their commercial interest, the procedures of Command 1337 are followed.

Sir R. Nugent: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that interference with the price of the area gas boards by him-self and his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs has raised a doubt about Government policy? Does he realise how much this interference weakens and discourages the efficiency and independence of management of these industries? Will he please refrain from using this as an instrument of Government economic policy?

Mr. Lee: I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman is now divorcing himself from the White Paper issued by the Government of which he was a member.

Mr. Peyton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the point made by my hon. Friend is that the principles of the White Paper to which he has referred should remain inviolate? What has happened, we suspect, is that interventions by his right hon. Friend the First Secretary are proving absolutely disastrous to those principles.

Mr. Lee: I think the hon. Gentleman will find at the end of the quinquennium that the principles contained in the White Paper have not been violated in any way.

Mr. William Hamilton: Is it not correct that the previous Administration interfered time and time again with the pricing

policy of the Coal Board, and, in particular, is it not the case that the former Prime Minister but one, or two, or three, whatever it was, interfered with fares in London for purely political purposes?

Mr. Lee: Yes, of course, Governments have intervened. Otherwise, one of the good effects of nationalised industry would be lost.

Area Gas Boards (Prices)

Sir R. Nugent: asked the Minister of Power whether he will introduce legislation to give himself the power to control the price of gas sold by area gas boards.

Mr. Frederick Lee: No, Sir.

Sir R. Nugent: Is the Minister aware that Parliament has not given him statutory powers to control the prices of the nationalised industries under his care? Will he, therefore, ask Parliament to give him such powers if he wants to control these prices? If not, will he refrain from doing so?

Mr. Lee: To answer the right hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, I return to an earlier Answer. The method by which Parliament and the Government in fact condition these things is by the use of Command Paper 1337.

Electricity (Maximum Charges)

Mr. Peter Walker: asked the Minister of Power (1) if he will seek power to appoint inspectors to look into complaints from tenants who believe that they are being charged for electricity in excess of the maximum charges laid down by the electricity boards;
(2) whether he will introduce the appropriate legislation to enable electricity boards to enforce maximum charges fixed under Section 29 of the Electricity Act, 1957.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power (Mr. John Morris): No, Sir, but as I have already made clear, my right hon. Friend is prepared to look into abuses and reconsider the matter if it is shown that there is a genuine need for strengthening the means of enforcement.

Mr. Walker: Is the Minister aware that without some form of inspection, either by the electricity boards or the


Ministry, it is almost impossible for tenants to obtain the required evidence to enable them to bring cases to the courts? Would it not be much easier to make these powers enforceable by the electricity boards themselves?

Mr. Morris: We have tackled this problem very speedily. We have decided to see how the present arrangements work and we have asked the electricity consultative councils to report back to us. If further action is needed, I assure the hon. Gentleman that we will take it.

Energy Advisory Committee

Mr. Palmer: asked the Minister of Power if he will amend the composition of his Energy Advisory Committee to include a substantial number of independent experts, scientific, engineering and economic.

Mr. Frederick Lee: No, Sir.

Mr. Palmer: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that the usefulness of the present Energy Advisory Committee is limited because it cannot give any genuinely independent advice? In view of that, will my right hon. Friend please take seriously the suggestion made in the Question?

Mr. Lee: I hope that I always take suggestions seriously. When there is an occasion for the Council to have special advice I invite such gentlemen to attend. Indeed, I have already had the advantage of having the assistance of the Chairman of the Central Electricity Generating Board and, on one occasion, the Chairman of the Atomic Energy Authority as well.

Advisory Council on Research and Development

Mr. Palmer: asked the Minister of Power how often his Advisory Council on Research and Development meets; what are the nature and frequency of its reports; how many of its reports have received his approval; and to whom, when approved, the reports are sent for implementation.

Mr. Frederick Lee: The Council meets and advises me at about two-monthly intervals. Its advice deals broadly with the objectives, major projects, balance of effort and degree of co-ordination of

research and development by the fuel and power industries. Its influence is achieved in two ways; first, through the deliberations of the Council, which includes representatives of the nationalised fuel and power industries amongst its members, and, secondly, through the discussions which I have with their chairmen on the basis of its advice.

Mr. Palmer: Does my right hon. Friend feel that the Advisory Council on Research and Development is assisting towards the closer working together from the technical point of view of the fuel and power industries?

Mr. Lee: I do indeed. The Advisory Council is doing a first-class job and I am sure that the whole House will agree when I say how indebted we are to Lord Fleck, who served as chairman for so many years, for the work that has already been done.

Sir Beresford Craddock: Would the Minister say whether research is continuing into the production of smokeless fuels, with particular regard to the more efficient production of these fuels, at cheaper prices?

Mr. Lee: Yes, indeed. A great deal of work is being done on this subject.

Scottish Gas Board (Smoke Control Orders)

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: asked the Minister of Power whether he is satisfied with the provision made by the Scottish Gas Board to assist householders affected by smoke control orders; and whether he will give a general direction to the Board to take steps to ensure that there will be no difficulties in areas to be affected by future smoke control orders.

Mr. John Morris: The Board makes every effort to meet householders' requirements in these areas. No particular difficulty is expected to arise under forthcoming new orders in Scotland.

Mr. Taylor: Would the right hon. Gentleman inquire into the situation in Cathcart? Is he aware that some of the residents there who are affected by the order were told by the Board's salesmen that they would have to wait for only a matter of days or weeks for gas appliances, but that in some cases they


Lave had to wait for more than four months because of alleged unprecedented demand—while at the same time the Board's salesmen have been promising speedy delivery and have, thereby, been creating a greater demand? Will he see that this mistake is not made again?

Mr. Morris: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the suggestion in the first part of his supplementary question. I am aware of some of the matters which he alleges. There has been some delay in the supply and fitting of appliances in regard to a smoke control area of Glasgow. This has been due in part to the heavy demand on the manufacturers of the appliances and the Board's staff who equip these appliances. I understand that installation will be completed by the end of the year, which will be three months after the due date. The Board has undertaken to see that no similar difficulties arise under forthcoming control orders.

Scottish Gas Board (General Directions)

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: asked the Minister of Power what new general directions he will give to the Scottish Gas Board, following receipt of the Board's annual report.

Mr. Frederick Lee: None, Sir.

Mr. Taylor: Is the Minister not aware that the activities of the Scottish Gas Board have become a national scandal? If he feels that a complacent attitude on this matter is satisfied, would the right hon. Gentleman talk to some of the residents in Scotland who have suffered a 6 per cent. price increase in February and who are now faced with a further increase of 13 per cent.

Mr. Lee: There is no question of my having any complacency about this matter. I am aware of the difficulties which the Scottish Gas Board has had, but they are issues in which I have no statutory powers to intervene. Indeed, these matters go to the Consultative Council; and if the Council refers any matter to me then I can intervene.

Nationalised Industries (Prices and Tariffs)

Mr. Peyton: asked the Minister of Power what machinery exists for co-

ordination between his Department and the Department of Economic Affairs concerning proposals by boards of nationalised industries to increase prices and tariffs.

Mr. Frederick Lee: The normal arrangements apply for close and constant liaison between Departments.

Mr. Peyton: Is the right hon. Gentleman really not aware that by far the best form of co-ordination between his Department and that of his right hon. Friend would be for him to tell his right hon. Friend not to interfere in matters with which he is not competent to deal and about which he knows nothing?

Mr. Lee: I will inform my right hon. Friend of the hon. Gentleman's opinion.

West Durham (Industrial Development)

Mr. Armstrong: asked the Minister of Power what proposals he has, following Command Paper No. 2805, to allocate special funds to provide alternative industrial development in West Durham, which has become an urgent priority due to the pending redundancy at Brancepeth, waterhouses and Esh Winning collieries.

Mr. John Morris: My right hon. Friend will be speaking about the special funds generally during the debate on the Second Reading of the Coal Industry Bill on Thursday.

Mr. Armstrong: Would my right hon. Friend bear in mind before Thursday that this is a very urgent matter indeed and that, as well as funds being made available, he might endeavour to prevent any pit closures before alternative industry is provided?

Mr. Morris: I understand the concern that is felt about special funds. There have been discussions with the National Union of Mineworkers on this matter and perhaps the whole subject will be canvassed on Thursday.

North Sea (Oil)

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Minister of Power if he will state the nature, kind, extent and result of his investigations into the effect of the discovery of oil in the North Sea for which he has given licences on the fish shoals


and on the number and fertility of fish in the North Sea.

Mr. John Morris: Offshore drilling and oil production in other parts of the world appears to have had no adverse effect on fish. I have no evidence to suggest that the effects will be different in the North Sea.

Mr. Hughes: My Question does not deal with other parts of the world. Does my hon. Friend realise that the fishing industry of the North Sea is of particular interest to the trade, industry and employment of Aberdeen as well as to the fish consumers of this country? Will he abandon this secrecy and publish the facts?

Mr. Morris: My hon. and learned Friend invites me to abandon secrecy and publish the facts. I should, perhaps, inform him, first, that the operations in the North Sea will affect only a fraction of the sea area while, secondly, I understand that landings of fish from the North Sea last year were better than in the previous year.

Sir Knox Cunningham: Would the Parliamentary Secretary make available the information he has about the effect on fish in the area around the oil drills off the American Continent?

Mr. Morris: I will certainly look into that matter, but perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman will put down a Question.

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Minister of Power if he will make it a condition of future licences issued by him to companies to drill for oil in the North Sea that they should keep him fully informed of their progress and the quantities of oil discovered, with a view to his publishing this information.

Mr. Frederick Lee: Under the regulations approved by Parliament, the full information which I receive from licensees is given me on a confidential basis.

Mr. Hughes: Does not my right hon. Friend realise that the North Sea is not private property but public property and that the public is entitled to the fullest information about the North Sea? Will my right hon. Friend see that all the information is published?

Mr. Lee: My hon. and learned Friend should be graceful enough to acknowledge that the Opposition nationalised the North Sea and that it is, in fact, public property. Frankly, if this information were divulged it would mean that a number of people who now hold licences would merely wait for other people to fail, and then not drill.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: asked the Minister of Power whether, in granting licences for exploration of the North Sea bed, he takes into account the availability of drilling rigs and ancillary equipment.

Mr. Frederick Lee: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Griffiths: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is widespread concern at the reported delay in delivery, which I understand to be four months and in some cases even five months? Can he tell the House whether delays in this vital installation programme are the result of industrial disputes in the shipyards, or where is the responsibility?

Mr. Lee: No. I do not think so. I understand that there are some delays, but at the moment I think there are five rigs drilling and we expect that this number will be raised to at least 13 by the second half of next year.

Coal, Gas and Electricity Industries (Advertising)

Mr. McGuire: asked the Minister of Power if he will issue general directions, in the public interest, to the boards of the nationalised coal, gas and electricity industries to reduce the competition between them, with particular reference to sales promotion practices connected with the sale of domestic heating equipment.

Mr. Fisher: asked the Minister of Power if he will give a general direction to the gas and electricity industries to cease advertising their products until they are able to meet the demands of their existing customers.

Mr. Tilney: asked the Minister of Power whether he will,give a general direction, in the public interest, to electricity and gas area boards to cease advertising until they are able to meet consumer demands.

Mr. J. H. Osborn: asked the Minister of Power what plans he has for reviewing the advertising campaigns of the gas and electricity industries.

Mr. Frederick Lee: Following discussions with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and myself, the chairmen of the rationalised fuel industries have agreed to discontinue advertising, both national and local, with certain minor exceptions, for a period of three months from 1st December, 1965.

Mr. McGuire: Is my right hon. Friend aware that one of the reasons why the gas shortage has been aggravated is the high pressure and despicable sales methods of gas boards? Is he aware that I have with me details of the condemnation of these methods by a judge in a case where a gas board sent a salesman round at a very low basic wage on the pretence of inspecting equipment but with the real job of selling new equipment? Is my right hon. Friend aware that this has aggravated the situation outlined in the House last week, and will he do something about it?

Mr. Lee: I do not think that that subject is covered by my hon. Friend's Question or by the Answer which I gave to it. I was merely talking about advertising.

Mr. Taney: Would the Minister bear in mind the advantages of oil heating and private enterprise?

Mr. Lee: There are great advantages in all these kinds of fuel, but I should have thought it inappropriate at this moment for the public to be confronted by advertisements of this kind when they know that there is a danger of cuts, and so on.

Mr. Fisher: Is the Minister aware that his decision—taken, of course, since these Questions were put down—will be generally welcomed by the public, who found it a little irritating to find their own supplies cut when these advertisements were still circulating? But why does he now try to include oil in this respect? After all, oil can be supplied—why should it not be advertised?

Mr. Lee: In some areas, all fuel can be supplied. It would therefore seem to me to be better—although national advertisements may be all right in a large

part of the country but are not applicable to certain areas—not to advertise at all during this period. The oil industry has understood this very well, and has cooperated with us.

Mr. Kelley: Would not my right hon. Friend consider that it would be in the national interest to promote the sale of coal while stocks are available, and so relieve the pressure on gas and electricity?

Mr. Lee: I can assure my hon. Friend that nothing we will do will prevent the National Coal Board or distributors of coal from attempting to do more than they have been doing.

Mr. Osborn: Would not the Minister agree that now is the time to promote the sale of oil, if there are ready supplies that can be used, and not discourage its sale by discouraging advertising?

Mr. Lee: I thought that I had answered that point when I referred to the different positions in the different regions. There are occasions when electricity, gas and oil are in plentiful supply, as well as coal, but I think that all of them come into the same category.

Electricity Supplies

Mr. Murray: asked the Minister of Power if he is satisfied about the security of electricity supply in the Gravesend and Northfleet area during the next six months; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Rhodes: asked the Minister of Power if he is satisfied about the security of the electricity supply to consumers in the North Eastern Electricity Board area in meeting the additional demands upon it during the winter months; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Frederick Lee: The distribution systems of the North Eastern and the South Eastern Electricity Boards are generally adequate to meet expected demands this winter, although local difficulties cannot be excluded. But if national demand overloads the available generating capacity or the main transmission system, area electricity boards would be required to reduce load.

Mr. Murray: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply, but would he confirm that over the last year the capacity at the Northfleet power station was reduced by 100,000 kilowatts? Will he


see that this position does not recur in the future?

Mr. Lee: I could not give the answer in regard to the specific amount that my hon. Friend mentions, but I can assure him that we are certainly doing everything possible, in conjunction with the industry, to ensure that adequate supplies are maintained. If the weather conditions make it inevitable that there should be cuts, I am afraid that this year they will take place.

Mr. Rhodes: As one knows that electricity generating plant takes about five years to manufacture—and I have a large manufacturing concern in my constituency—would my right hon. Friend tell me whether the present situation in the North-East is the result of under-estimation of the demand in the early 'sixties in the plans approved by the party opposite?

Mr. Lee: The Generating Board was basing itself this year on a plant margin of about 14 per cent. It is the case that if there is an under-estimate in, say, 1960, inevitably one will not meet the demand in 1965 in adverse conditions. It is also the case that in making its estimates, the Board has to take into account the outage of plant, the inaccuracy that can take place in load forecasting and in forecasting the weather. It is true that we have now reached a position this year on the basis of the 1960 forecasting, where we are 2,700 megawatts short.

Electricity and Gas Supplies

Mr. Murray: asked the Minister of Power if he is satisfied about the security of electricity supply nationally during the next six months; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: asked the Minister of Power what preparations the Central Electricity Generating Board are making to deal with the cold spell forecast by the long-distance weather forecast service for the first half of December.

Mr. Channon: asked the Minister of Power what steps he is taking to maintain gas and electricity services at all times this winter and to avoid power cuts during cold spells.

Mr. Frederic Harris: asked the Minister of Power what safeguarding

action he proposes to take to avoid inconvenience to the public arising from electricity power breakdowns this winter.

Miss Quennell: asked the Minister of Power whether he will issue a general direction, in the public interest, to the electricity boards and the gas boards to complete their winter arrangements by 1st November in future years.

Mr. Driberg: asked the Minister of Power what steps he is taking to avert further public inconvenience and hardship of the kind suffered during the recent cold weather; why the winter preparations of the electricity and gas boards were not complete by mid-November; and if he will make a statement.

Sir R. Russell: asked the Minister of Power if he will give general directions to the gas and electricity boards to complete the annual overhaul of their plants earlier than mid-November.

Mr. Frederick Lee: The Government have announced that a winter emergency committee covering the fuel, power and transport industries is being set up to deal with any emergency that arises and, so far as possible, to take action in advance of any strain that may develop. The industries are doing everything possible to bring their plant to a high state of readiness and to bring new plant into service.
As far as future winters are concerned, the industries have been asked to plan their withdrawal of plant for annual overhaul so that their full capacity is available by the end of October each year.

Mr. Murray: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask him whether he will ensure that enough publicity is given to these facts, and will he point out that this has been due to a general lack of planning by the previous Administration?

Mr. Lee: I have pointed out the shortage that we have to meet this year. I can assure my hon. Friend that the Board is doing a first-class job of work in keeping in commission plant that otherwise would have gone out of commission—and, maybe, at times overstraining other plant in order to ensure that it cuts down the gaps to a minimum. That approach will continue.

Mr. Channon: As these vital industries, gas and electricity, are at present unable in moments of crisis to meet the demands, can the Minister give the House the absolute assurance that there will be no cut in the vital investment programme that these industries are about to undertake?

Mr. Lee: We have no intention of cutting any investment programme.

Mr. Driberg: Would my right hon. Friend be good enough to answer the second part of Question No. 34, which, I think, was not answered in his original reply? Also, does he recall that, many months ago, a number of shop stewards at Beckton Works issued a detailed warning of the likelihood of a gas shortage this winter because of the loss of skilled manpower at those works and the abolition of reliable coal-burning plant?

Mr. Lee: I have mentioned that there is now a shortage of plant. This does have its effect on the stage at which the boards can begin to make their plant ready for the winter. In other words, they have to keep longer in commission during the summer period plant that they would otherwise be renovating against the winter period—[Interruption.] If hon. Members opposite want me to begin talking about private enterprise, I will do so. It is because private enterprise let the boards down that they now have to overwork the plant they have, and that does result in the fact that their winter programme is not ready as early as it otherwise would be.

Miss Quennell: Does the Minister realise that his Answer to the first group of Questions is rather unsatisfactory? Can he indicate whether the emergency committee to which he refers will be a permannt body in order that plans can be conf dently completed by 1st November in future years?

Mr. Lee: It is intended that the committee shall function during the course of this winter. I have intimated the real cause of the problem. As far as that goes, the Generating Board, the Gas Council and the boards will keep in the closest possible communication with their suppliers to ensure that they get the best delivery possible.

Mr. Richard: In order to keep this matter in perspective, can my right hon.

Friend tell us how much it would cost in terms of national resources to obviate all possible power difficulties in a period of prolonged bad weather? How much, in money, would have to be spent in order to give the sort of assurance asked for by hon. Members opposite?

Mr. Lee: I mentioned, I think, that the Board's plan was to have a margin this year of 14 per cent., rising by 1969–1970 to 17 per cent. This should give the kind of margin to which my hon. Friend refers, but because of the things I have pointed out—lack of supplies, and so on —that margin is now down to 7·4 per cent. Obviously, on that basis, if the weather conditions at any one point become acute, that 7·4 per cent. will not meet the position.

Mr. Peyton: In order to get this matter quite straight, does the right hon. Gentleman recall that the plans on which he is relying now were made by the previous Administration? [HON. MEMBERS: "And the shortages"] In reply to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon), I was glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman's statement that there will be no cuts in electricity or gas investment, but has he at any time contemplated the wisdom of an increase and is he now advising that?

Mr. Lee: That is a very wide question of which I should need notice. The hon. Member has been very fair in these matters. In our debates some time ago he said that it was easy to ask that supplies should be sufficient for an exceptional winter, but to do that we must accept that we would be faced with the cost. Because of that it is not possible this year to make these 100 per cent. secure.

Miss Quennell: Owing to the very confused nature of the reply to my Question, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter again at the earliest possible moment.

Power Stations (Cooling Towers)

Mr. Kelley: asked the Minister of Power (1) if he is satisfied that a 5-inch wall of concrete, with the present system of reinforcement, is adequate to meet the stresses of air movement, having regard to the height to which cooling


towers are now being erected at conventional power stations; and if he will make a statement;
(2) if he will conduct investigations into the temperature in which concrete was laid in the erection of three cooling towers which blew down in the recent gale in Yorkshire; and if anti-freezing processes were used to ensure fusion of concrete aggregates in low temperatures.

Mr. John Morris: My right hon. Friend is not responsible for the design and methods of construction used by the Central Electricity Generating Board and its contractors in constructing power stations. However, the points raised by my hon. Friend will doubtless be engaging the attention of the Committee of Inquiry which has been set up by the Board to inquire into the collapse of cooling towers at Ferrybridge Power Station.

Mr. Kelley: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for that reply, but I should like to draw his attention to the fact that a great number of conversations are taking place—

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member must put this in the form of a question.

Mr. Kelley: Is my hon. Friend aware that a great number of conversations are taking place in my constituency where many people are employed on this power station, that these towers were erected by private enterprise, avoiding certain safeguards which could have been taken, and as a consequence this calamity occurred? It did not lead to any fatalities, but these things can happen and we are asking the Minister to ensure that proper precautions should be taken against the placing of—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister has had enough to answer.

Mr. Morris: I agree with my hon. Friend that there is great concern about this issue. The terms of reference of the Committee of Inquiry which has been set up by the Board are "to examine the collapse of the cooling towers at Ferry-bridge and to make recommendations" This is a very important matter. In addition to the Committee of Inquiry, two joint working parties are investigating the matter. It is a matter of great concern to the nation and to the Board.

Fuel Policy (White Paper)

Mr. Hamling: asked the Minister of Power what official consultations he has had with the interests concerned on the implementation of the White Paper on a national fuel policy.

Mr. Frederick Lee: I keep in close touch with the interests concerned in the implementation of fuel policy, particularly the fuel industries.

Mr. Hamling: In view of the fact that coal is a national indigenous product, will my right hon. Friend tell the House whether he is satisfied that as much research is being put into the use of coal as into the use of oil?

Mr. Lee: I can assure my hon. Friend that a very great deal of research is being put into the use of coal. I now have the assistance of a joint research committee of the electricity, gas and coal industries. Despite the fact that at the moment the economics of carbonisation are not as good as they are in oil, that does not mean that we are not doing all this research in the hope of getting a break-through.

Gas and Electricity (Capital Expenditure)

Mr. Wingfield Digby: asked the Minister of Power what capital sum was spent in the last year by the Gas Boards and the Central Electricity Generating Board; and what proportion this represented of total capital expenditure in the public sector.

Mr. Frederick Lee: I would refer the hon. Member to the published Reports and Accounts for 1964–65 of the Gas Council and the Central Electricity Generating Board. Total capital expenditure by the gas and electricity industries was nearly one quarter of capital expenditure by the public sector.

Mr. Digby: Does not that represent a very big precentage? Is the Minister sure that it is now being spent to the best advantage from the point of view of the nation?

Mr. Lee: I think it is being spent to the best interests of the nation provided we can get the gear we pay for.

Gas and Electricity (Power Cuts)

Mr. Wingfield Digby: asked the Minister of Power if he will give general directions, in the public interest, to the Gas Council and the Central Electricity Generating Board to take disciplinary action against those responsible for the recent power cuts.

Mr. Frederick Lee: No, Sir. The recent difficulties were not due to the faults of individuals. Gas and electricity staffs made very great efforts to maintain supplies.

Mr. Digby: Does the Minister think that the public will ever be well served so long as no one is willing to take the blame in the public service?

Mr. Lee: If that is the case, the hon. Member should address his Front Bench on the subject.

Mr. Palmer: Will my right hon. Friend agree that these are devoted engineers, devoted public servants—[Interruption]—who are doing their public duty in the public interest to avoid the kind of complete shutdown in the public supply system which the country had three years ago?

Mr. Lee: I join my hon. Friend entirely in this. It is so easy when there is a partial breakdown in supply for what I might call energy illiterates to blame those who are working hard. The energy and efforts of those connected with these Boards are absolutely remarkable.

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is against the courtesies of the House for an hon. Member to step between whoever is speaking and the Chair if that can be avoided.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: I beg to apologise to you, Mr. Speaker.

Electricity Supplies (Import from Western Germany)

Mr. Gresham Cooke: asked the Minister of Power whether he will issue a general direction, in the public interest, to the Central Electricity Generating Board to import electrical power from West Germany to overcome shortages in this country, having regard to the earlier hour of factory closing in Germany compared with this country in winter.

Mr. Frederick Lee: Arrangements for the exchange of power with Western Germany would be very costly and present severe technical difficulties. They could not be made in time to help overcome the present shortage of plant in this country.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: As German factories close at 4 p.m. our time, would it not be easy to lay a cable across the North Sea and to pump in electricity from the Continent as we do from France and so have a supply of electricity at the moment when our peak load is on?

Mr. Lee: I have looked closely at this, but we could not possibly arrange for it to be done in advance of catching up on the supply we have been discussing this afternoon. We are closely connected with France, and have been obtaining power from there as late as last night, to my knowledge. I can assure the hon. Member that although I have looked at the situation in the light of the present position, this would not help.

Coal (Export to Eastern Europe)

Mrs. Renée Short: asked the Minister of Power if he will give a general direction, in the public interest, to the National Coal Board to take energetic steps to increase the volume of coal exports to countries of Eastern Europe.

Mr. John Morris: No, Sir. The export of coal is a commercial matter for the National Coal Board. I understand that the Board is making energetic efforts to increase sales wherever satisfactory opportunities can be found.

Fuel and Power Industries (Co-ordination)

Mr. Park: asked the Minister of Power if he will issue general directions to the nationalised fuel and power industries so as to bring about greater coordination between them.

Mr. Frederick Lee: I promote coordination between the nationalised fuel and power industries through discussion in my Co-ordinating Committee and in other ways. No occasion has arisen for the issue of a direction.

Mr. Park: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that much of the existing


competition between these nationalised industries is expensive, wasteful and unnecessary? Therefore, would he look at this problem again and consider the possibility of strengthening the co-ordinating functions of the Energy Advisory Council or alternatively setting up a new national power board under his own chairmanship?

Mr. Lee: As I said in the White Paper, the scope for further co-operation will be kept under review. We are indeed doing a great deal now. I have set up machinery by which there are regular meetings under my chairmanship between the chairmen of these various boards and, in the wider context, there is the Energy Advisory Council itself. However, I do not look upon this as the end of the story. Rather, it is the beginning of it.

Mr. Peyton: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that, if he were to follow the advice given by his hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Park), it would be tantamount to telling the customer to take what he is given and like it? Will he bear in mind that by far the best guarantee of satisfaction to the customer, indeed the only one, is competition between these industries?

Mr. Lee: I think that where there are nationalised industries there is more to it than competition. The very basis upon which the Statutes were drawn presupposes some competition between them. Because of the overriding responsibility, to the nation, it is right and proper that the Government should supervise them.

Gas (Maximum Retail Prices)

Mr. Atkinson: asked the Minister of Power if he will take steps to give the Gas Boards the right to check the setting of sub-meters, and to empower the Boards to take the necessary legal action against landlords who overcharge sub-tenants for the use of gas, and thus remove the onus of such action from sub-consumers.

Mr. John Morris: Maximum resale prices for gas have been fixed for some years, but there has been little evidence of overcharging. Before considering the introduction of further legislation, my right hon. Friend would need to be convinced that the present arrangements were not working satisfactorily.

Mr. Atkinson: Is my hon. Friend aware that on numerous occasions in recent months the chairmen of consultative councils have in fact provided the Minister with adequate evidence that this over-charging goes on and that there are many thousands of people throughout the country who are being exploited by rotten landlords who find that this is a cheap method of adding some extras to their rent? Does not my hon. Friend consider that this is adequate evidence to justify taking some action now, as has been done in the case of electricity?

Mr. Morris: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I understand that he is dealing with gas. If he has any particulars, my right hon. Friend and myself will be most grateful to receive them. If consumers do not send them to us, they may send them to the consultative councils. I assure my hon. Friend that if action is needed it will be taken.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL

National Coal Board (Capital Investment Programme)

Mrs. Renée Short: asked the Minister of Power to what extent the capital investment programme of the National Coal Board is geared to the 1970 target as specified in the National Plan.

Mr. Frederick Lee: I would refer my hon. Friend to paragraph 13 of the White Paper on the Finances of the Coal Industry.

Mrs. Short: In view of the fact that last year £90 million was invested in the coal industry, does not my right hon. Friend think that in the national interest maximum productivity should be obtained even if that means exceeding the £90 million?

Mr. Lee: I certainly think the maximum should be obtained. No target is fixed in the White Paper. This is merely an assessment and, if the coal industry can beat it, the best of British luck to it.

Central Heating Installations (Solid Fuel)

Mr. Hamling: asked the Minister of Power if he will issue a general direction, in the public interest, to the National


Coal Board to offer concessions to private consumers wishing to install central heating appliances using solid fuels.

Mr. John Morris: No, Sir. The Board already has a scheme to provide deferred payment facilities for the purchase of solid fuel appliances.

Mr. Hamling: Will my hon. Friend ask the National Coal Board to set up central manufacturing facilities for the production of solid fuel central heating appliances for district heating on municipil housing estates?

Mr. Morris: I am sure that if that suggestion is within the powers of the Board, the Board will bear it in mind. Since 1960, under the present scheme loans of over £25 million have been made for the kind of heating referred to in my Answer.

Oral Answers to Questions — ATLANTIC NUCLEAR FORCE

Mr. Blaker: asked the Prime Minister whether the public statement made by the Foreign Secretary in New York on 7th October at a Press conference about the Atlantic Nuclear Force represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): Yes, Sir.

Mr. Blaker: In that case is it not regrettable that in the House yesterday the Foreign Secretary appeared to reaffirm his support for the A.N.F.? Is is not clear that there are better ways than this for arranging for a German share in nuclear matters? Will not the Government now come out clearly and drop the proposal?

The Prime Minister: We have not heard from the Opposition what better way; they have of arranging this matter. The hon. Gentleman said that there are better ways. We consider the A.N.F. to be the best way of dealing with this problem and so far half the party opposite has been supporting the M.L.F. and half has been against it. I am not sure what better way the hon. Gentleman has in mind.

Mr. Paget: Is not the best way of obtaining parity with the Germans for neither of us to have it? Have the Americans in fact offered to bring about this arrangement by purchasing the

Polaris submarines from us, and would not this be an admirable export?

The Prime Minister: There has not been this proposition from the American Government, although I am aware of the Press reports to the effect that this may be coming up for discussion. The House will recognise that there has been no opportunity yet within the alliance to discuss the problems of A.N.F. and M.L.F. because of the long delay owing to the German elections,

Oral Answers to Questions — NUCLEAR WEAPONS

Mr. G. Campbell: asked the Prime Minister (1) why Her Majesty's Government did not table the draft of a treaty on non-dissemination of nuclear weapons at Geneva during the Recess as he foreshadowed in a statement in the House of Commons on 27th July;
(2) why Her Majesty's Government did not join the United States Government in sponsoring the draft treaty on non-dissemination of nuclear weapons tabled at Geneva by the United States of America on 17th August.

The Prime Minister: We did not table the United Kingdom draft non-dissemination treaty at Geneva because it went further than the views of some of our allies on the question of the control of nuclear weapons. Much of the United States draft treaty was based on the text prepared by the United Kingdom, and while giving it our general support, we made it clear that we would like to see it amended in certain respects. For this reason, we could not join in sponsoring it.

Mr. Campbell: Why was the disagreement with the Americans discovered only at the last moment when the Geneva Conference was reassembling, and what were the Government and the Minister for Disarmament doing in the months beforehand? Can the Prime Minister say whether the new initiative in disarmament described in the Labour Party's manifesto as coming first and foremost has yet taken place?

The Prime Minister: What we were doing all these months was to try to reach agreement with the Americans. Again there were difficulties because of


the German elections. The position is that we do not support the idea of a separate independent European nuclear deterrent. This was the point at issue both between ourselves and the United States and between ourselves and the Germans.

Mr. Mendelson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the kind of proposals put forward by the Minister for Disarmament have received widespread support and are regarded as by far the most practicable proposals on this subject which have recently been put forward by any one of the major Powers? Will my right hon. Friend give further support to this policy so that we see that we get a wider East-West agreement before we create any barriers to that agreement by internal arrangements?

The Prime Minister: I believe that as time goes on we shall find more and more support for the propositions put forward by my noble Friend. I hope that as a result of discussions within the alliance we may get widespread support for it within the alliance itself.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND (ECONOMIC PLANNING)

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: asked the Prime Minister what are the respective responsibilities of the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs and the Secretary of State for Scotland for economic planning in Scotland.

The Prime Minister: I would refer the hon. Member to the Answer I gave to a Question by the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. G. Campbell) on 1st February.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Is the Prime Minister aware that we have been told that local authority borrowing in Scotland has been slashed by one-third? Yet the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs appears to believe that Scotland has been unaffected by the consequences of the Government's mishandling of our affairs? Would he take steps to ensure that the First Secretary of State knows what is being done in the Government's name in Scotland?

The Prime Minister: I think my right hon. Friend certainly knows who was

responsible for the mishandling of the nation's affairs. The hon. Gentleman is free at any time to put questions to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland on the precise effects of the local government position there.

Mr. Heath: Is not the Prime Minister aware that the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave specific undertakings that development districts, of which the central belt of Scotland is one, would be exempted from the reductions in capital expenditure, and we as a Government gave a similar undertaking when the Scottish White Paper was published and implemented? Yet now local authority borrowing has been slashed by one-third. How can the Prime Minister reconcile these two things?

The Prime Minister: I think that when the right hon. Gentleman comes to study what has actually happened there—we are prepared to make a very much fuller statement in view of what he has said—he will find that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer's statement has been carried out.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRE-SCHOOL CHILDREN

Dr. Kerr: asked the Prime Minister what representations he has received on the establishment of a Royal Commission on the needs of the pre-school child; and what decision he has reached.

The Prime Minister: None, Sir.

Dr. Kerr: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that there is a growing body of opinion among people working in education, health and social affairs that the under-fives are the most dispossessed and deprived section of the community? Would he indicate to the House that he is consulting with his colleagues with responsibility in these departments with a view to having a sympathetic look at the proposal?

The Prime Minister: I agree that there is certainly a problem here, and the Central Advisory Council for Education, the one dealing with England, is at present considering all aspects of primary education, including the educational needs of children under five.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTERIAL SALARIES

Mr. Higgins: asked the Prime Minister what percentage increase the estimated current cost per year of Ministerial salaries represents over the year 1963; and whether he will now reduce the size of the Administration.

The Prime Minister: Eighty-eight per cent., Sir; largely due to the decisions reached following the recommendations 4at the Lawrence Committee appointed by my predecessor.
The Answer to the last part of the Question is "No. Sir".

Mr. Higgins: Would not the Prime Minister agree that one of the main reasons why the cost of living has gone u so fast in the last year is the fact that there has been very little coordination between the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the First Secretary of Slate? Should we not have the two Departments amalgamated so that coordination between them can be achieved?

The Prime Minister: I thought that the Question related to Ministerial salaries. The point that I was trying to make was that the increase in Ministerial salaries about which the hon. Gentleman asks would have been not 88 per cent. but well over 100 per cent., even on the size of the previous Administration, if we had carried out in full the Report of the Committee which was appointed by the previous Government.

Oral Answers to Questions — DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC AFFAIRS AND MINISTRY OF OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Alison: asked the Prime Minister, in view of the need to reconcile the objectives of the National Plan and the need to expand the volume of overseas aid, if he will take steps to coordinate the activities of the Department of Economic Affairs and the Ministry of Overseas Development.

The Prime Minister: The work of these two Departments is already co-ordinated.

Mr. Alison: Is the Prime Minister aware that the co-ordination so far achieved has been the specifying and quantifying of substantial advances for

G.N.P. in this country and for personal consumption but no specification or quantification for the growth of overseas aid? Will he give a firm undertaking that the volume of aid will increase at least as much as the 21 per cent. specified for personal consumption?

The Prime Minister: In the programme there is provision for overseas aid, but, as to looking five years ahead, we have to watch the position of overseas aid because of growth in commitments some of which have to be met. That is why we have yet reached no final decision about what the position will he by 1970. We are trying to ensure that what we can afford for overseas aid is effectively spent in relation to development programmes in other countries.

Oral Answers to Questions — KENYA (EUROPEAN FARMERS)

Mr. Chataway: asked the Prime Minister what official communications he has had with the President of Kenya about the future of the European mixed farmers in Kenya.

The Prime Minister: Exchanges between myself and other Heads of Government are confidential.

Mr. Chataway: Is the Prime Minister aware that the recently agreed loan to the Government of Kenya means a reduction in land transfer from Europeans to Africans from an annual rate of about 500,000 acres to 100,000 acres? Is he aware that there is some real anxiety about the security of European farmers and about their ability to get reasonable prices for their land as a result of the decision, and will he watch the situation carefully?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir; I am aware of the anxiety referred to. It is a fact that I have had discussions with the President of Kenya. My right hon. Friend made a statement about this in the House last week, and has made a further statement which has been placed in the Library, and no doubt the hon. Gentleman will be studying it.

Mr. George Y. Mackie: Is the Prime Minister aware that 100,000 acres a year will in no way satisfy the land hunger existing among the African population? As Kenya is an example to other areas


of Africa, would he not consider again intervening personally in order to raise the acreage to at least 200,000, which I understand is the figure that the Kenya Government would like to see?

The Prime Minister: We are in touch with the Government of Kenya, but the general responsibility for the allocation of land must lie with them. The House will have noticed the considerable satisfaction—despite the anxieties—expressed by Europeans in Kenya, of which they have recently sent a statement to another part of Africa.

Oral Answers to Questions — EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY

Mr. Longden: asked the Prime Minister if, at the earliest opportunity and in consultation with Great Britain's partners in the European Free Trade Association, he will seek to further the concept of European unity, and to prevent further damage to that concept and to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, by means of a new British initiative towards the European Economic Community.

The Prime Minister: The European Free Trade Association Ministerial Council at its meeting last month reaffirmed the initiative Her Majesty's Government took at the Vienna meeting, and is pressing the community for discussions aimed at ending the economic division of Western Europe.

Mr. Longden: While welcoming that reply, may I ask the Prime Minister whether it is not time that a further initiative was taken by Her Majesty's Government, because the 19th-century policies of the French President are placing the European Economic Community, and, indeed, possibly N.A.T.O., in jeopardy? Is it not time for the British Government to drop their policy of passivity and take the initiative?

The Prime Minister: I am not sure that immediately after the return of the Leader of the Opposition from Paris—we all welcome him back—we should have these phrases of criticism of the French President in that form. We have on both sides of the House taken the view that it is not for us to intervene in the dis-

agreement within the Community, taking one side or the other. All of us have expressed, as the right hon. Gentleman did yesterday, our deep concern and also our very sincere hope that the difficulties will be overcome as soon as possible.

Mr. Gower: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether he is prepared to contemplate an initiative on his part which is less hamstrung with a lot of conditions than the one which he described previously?

The Prime Minister: We took an initiative at Vienna, and we are now awaiting the response from the Community. We fully understand that, because of difficulties in the Community, it is difficult for it at this stage to respond to our initiative.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOUTHERN RHODESIA (GOVERNOR AND LADY GIBBS)

Mr. Dan Jones: asked the Prime Minister if he will send to Salisbury, Southern Rhodesia, a token force of the Brigade of Guards to protect the lives of the Governor and Lady Gibbs for so long as they remain in that country as the Queen's personal representatives under present circumstances.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir.

Mr. Jones: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his Answer will cause a good deal of serious misgiving to many people in this country? Is he further aware that the situation with regard to the Governor in Rhodesia is such that if anything happened to him a very serious misgiving would arise in this country, and even more so in Africa, that it might have been due to the Smith regime's being remiss? Will not my right hon. Friend think this out again?

The Prime Minister: I certainly agree with what my hon. Friend said about concern for the Governor—the whole House will agree, too—but when there were threatening letters Mr. Smith himself, I think, restored the guard to ensure that nothing happened to the Governor. All I am concerned to say is that what my hon. Friend has in mind is not the right way to deal with the matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — VIETNAM

Mr. Philip Noel-Baker: asked the Prime Minister, in pursuance of his initiative to seek peace in Vietnam, what consultations he has had with President Johnson about the offers made by the Government of North Vietnam to start discussions about the ending of the war in Vietnam.

The Prime Minister: We are in constant touch with the United States Administration at all levels but we have not ye: had from the North Vietnamese authorities any clear sign of willingness to negotiate.

Several Hon. Members: rose—[Laughter.]

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Philip Noel-Baker.

Mr. Noel-Baker: In view of the startling admissions made last week by the State Department, and of the appalling savagery of the methods used by both sides in the war in Vietnam, will my right hon. Friend consider whether he and his colleagues in the Commonwealth Peace Mission could not now attempt to secure in the General Assembly of the United Nations a world consensus about the conditions on which discussions could begin for a cease-fire and a negotiated settlement of the war?

The Prime Minister: I certainly agree that the Vietnamese fighting is not a laughing matter, as may be thought on the benches opposite. With regard to what my right hon. Friend referred to—an attempt to get a settlement—this was, in fact, in September, 1964, and I heard about it afterwards. It is the aim of the Government of this country to get people round a table, and I think that we began to get some success, from April onwards at any rate, in getting American willingness to go there. Finally, with regard to his suggestion, I am in touch with other members of the Commonwealth Peace Mission. The whole matter has been raised again very recently as a result of my visit to Africa, and, also, I hope that I shall be in touch with the President of the United States before too long. But I do not believe that the right place at which to raise this at the moment is either the Security Council or the General Assembly, for reasons which my right hon. Friend will recognise.

Lord Balniel: As we now know, in May the French Government passed on the offer from Hanoi to negotiate provided only that the Americans withdrew their troops. Can the Prime Minister say what it was which led him to make his proposals in June, when the Commonwealth Peace Mission stood no chance of success at all?

The Prime Minister: There is a great deal of doubt about the message from the French Government, and I do not accept the summary of it as stated by the noble Lord. In June we took our initiative representing the whole Commonwealth, every point of view on the Vietnam issue, but it was clear in all that followed that we got no response at all from Hanoi to a proposition, certainly not on the lines mentioned by the noble Lord.

Mr. Lubbock: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what conditions, if any, were attached to this offer of negotiations by Hanoi? In view of his recent discovery that some approach was made, does the Prime Minister consider that any fresh negotiation by Her Majesty's Government is worth while at the present time?

The Prime Minister: This is not a recent discovery. I heard a long time ago about the initiative taken by Hanoi in September, 1964, although there was no reason to suppose that it looked, at that time, like solving the problem. I have not been given any information by any Government with whom we are in touch suggesting that there was any reasonable offer by Hanoi. Our task must be to probe continuously to see if there is any chance of a willingness, even a conditional willingness, to come to the conference table.

Mr. Orme: Following the revelations we have had in relation to the United States Government, will my right hon. Friend impress upon that Government that this country will not accept any extension of the war into North Vietnam or the bombing of Haiphong or any of these other places?

The Prime Minister: I am not accepting any responsibility for what happened before October, 1964. The revelations my hon. Friend referred to were made in September, 1964. Our task earlier this year was to try to bring about negotiations


through the Commonwealth Peace Mission. The speech by President Johnson in Baltimore in May made clear the United States Government's willingness to negotiate and it has since been elaborated on. If we could get a similar willingness from Hanoi there might me more hope of getting negotiations.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Prime Minister—statement.

Mr. Noel-Baker: May I ask the Prime Minister—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think that the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mr. Philip Noel-Baker) heard me. Question Time is over. I called the Prime Minister to make a statement.

RHODESIA

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and arising out of the exchanges yesterday, I should like to make a statement on the Rhodesian situation following the resolution passed by the Security Council on 20th November.
The House will recall the circumstances in which my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary went to New York. He had to negotiate and debate against a background of almost overwhelming demand for the use of collective military force, and it was the desire of the whole House, too, that he should assert the British responsibility for Rhodesia, while seeking the fullest support for effective measures to bring Rhodesia back to constitutional rule. I believe my right hon. Friend had a great success in what he set out to do, not least because he was able to claim the full support of Parliament and the country.
It became clear that the original British resolution would not have secured a majority and we insisted that the opposing resolution, supported by 36 African States, was unacceptable. In the event, a compromise resolution which, with the explanation made by my noble Friend Lord Caradon, last Saturday, was acceptable to us, was passed by ten votes to none, France abstaining.
The text of the resolution, Lord Caradon's statement, the earlier resolutions and the speeches of my right hon. Friend have been—are being—placed in the Library.
There are three things to which I would draw attention—the question of Chapter 7 wording, the reference in the resolution to the 1961 Constitution and the question of trade relations and an oil embargo.
On the wording of the resolution, Lord Caradon made it clear that, with regard to the operative paragraph one, we do not regard it as falling under Chapter 7 of the Charter of the United Nations.
Now I turn to paragraph 7 of the resolution, which is one that calls upon the United Kingdom Government, as the working of the 1961 Constitution has broken down, to take immediate measures in order to allow the people of Rhodesia to determine their own future, consistent with the objectives of General Assembly Resolution 1514 (xv).
I cannot see any difficulty here. Manifestly the 1961 Constitution has broken down. In so far as Mr. Smith and his colleagues purport to be a Government, they have replaced it by an entirely new so-called Constitution. But the House must accept that the Constitution had in fact already broken down as a result of the ordinances and decrees signed on 10th November, which amounted to the destruction of all safeguards for the rule of law, for human rights in the 1961 Constitution and earlier legislation.
This certainly does not mean we have abrogated it. It remains the law of Rhodesia, together with the new laws made last week under the powers created by the Southern Rhodesia Act, 1965. While we have power to revoke or amend sections of that Constitution, we have said we have no present intention of revoking it as a whole, and I cannot at this stage foresee circumstances in which we would do so. I will come to its rôle in the re-settlement period in a moment.
With reference to paragraph 8 of the Security Council resolution, on 12th November, I said:
We shall certainly have to review the situation in the light of the discussions in the United Nations and elsewhere, because in our view it is important that, whatever measures are taken, they will fall a long way short of some of the measures which may be urged in the United Nations."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th November, 1965; Vol. 720, c. 635.]
Our position was explained by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary yesterday. We are committed to doing what is in our power to implementing this


resolution. But although we insist this remains a British responsibility we shall not follow a unilateral policy. For this reason, as my right hon. Friend said, we shall take counsel with other Governments on the best methods to pursue.
For one thing, unilateral action on oar part under the resolution could not be effective, if other nations were to fill any gap we created. So far as oil is concerned, there are many technical and economic factors to be examined if an oil sanction is to be made effective. I will, of course, make a further statement to the House when I am in a position to do so. The same considerations apply in the case of other goods entering into Rhodesian trade.
The test to be applied, as I explained to the House on 12th November, is the effectiveness of the measures to be applied as a means of contributing to the return of Rhodesia to constitutional methods of Government. For the reasons I then explained, this issue cannot be burked. The measures must not be vindictive, but they must be effective if we are to continue to discharge our continuing responsibility for Rhodesia, and not have that responsibility taken out of our hands, by others, and possibly by methods which would involve lasting damage for Rhodesia, and indeed far beyond Rhodesia.
In judging the effectiveness and the rightness of any measures we propose to the House, I hope hon. Members and right hon. Members will recognise that action which is speedily effective will do less lasting damage to Rhodesia's economy, and to the possibility of a reasonable settlement, than pressures which are long drawn out and inflict a continuing agony on Rhodesia. I hope the House will recognise, too, that while we must continue to assert our special and continuing responsibility, this is a matter of world concern. What is at stake here is the future of our multi-racial Commonwealth, what is at stake—has been at stake—is the possibility of our virtual isolation at the United Nations. What is at stake, too, is whether the Afro-Asian bloc will continue in a substantially neutralist posture, or will be attracted by the pressures from other nations—not least China—who are in a position to turn the Rhodesian situation to their advantage.
Finally, I repeat our aims for Rhodesia. They are as speedily as possible to turn Rhodesia back into constitutional channels, and to do this constructively, without recrimination. When the Governor is able to report that the people of Rhodesia are willing and able to work on constitutional paths, we are prepared to work together with their leaders to make a new start. For this purpose, the 1961 Constitution remains in being, though the House will realise the need for those amendments which are required to prevent its perversion and misuse, such as we have seen in the last fortnight, and those amendments, too, which are needed to give effect to the five principles to which all parties in this House have subscribed.

Mr. Heath: Is the Prime Minister aware that we are labouring under two disadvantages, to which I would draw his attention? First, we had his statement only at the last minute and, although we were able to make allowances for that while negotiations were going on, I remind him that the United Nations resolution was passed three days ago. The fact that we received a statement so late makes it difficult to have proper consultation.
Again, I think the right hon. Gentleman said that Lord Caradon's speeches and reservations are in the Library, but they are not and, therefore, we have been unable to ascertain what reservations Lord Caradon made. As the Prime Minister said, this is not a Chapter 7 resolution. By that, does he mean that it is not mandatory on countries? If so, why did the Foreign Secretary say yesterday that the Government are implementing the resolution?
Secondly, it is not only a question of the resolution saying that the Constitution has broken down, but also committing the British Government to the peoples of Rhodesia themselves settling a future constitution as the next stage. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the British Government will not go back on the 1961 Constitution or any of the offers made by the right hon. Gentleman during the next negotiations?
Thirdly, on the question of a trade embargo, will the Prime Minister state clearly whether, one way or the other,


the British Government intend now to impose a complete trade embargo, including oil, for which the resolution calls, or only to impose it if all other members of the United Nations do the same thing?

The Prime Minister: First, on the question of the time of the statement reaching the right hon. Gentleman, I will make inquiries, because it left my hands in time to reach him for 3.15 p.m., which is a great deal earlier than we ever got statements. I can remember very many absolutely crucial statements arriving at 3.25 p.m. or 3.30 p.m. I certainly intended that the right hon. Gentleman should have plenty of time with this statement, according to the usual practice.
I certainly regret it if the papers to which I referred are not already in the Library. I have given instructions for them to be there and I will see about it. I would be prepared to consider whether we should not now publish the whole lot as a White Paper so that all hon. Members can get them, because they may want more than one copy.
With regard to the question of Chapter 7, our interpretation is that the wording, because it was a compromise, could be interpreted as something between Chapter 6 and Chapter 7. I agree with what the right hon. Gentleman says, that we do not regard it as a Chapter 7. We do not regard it as mandatory, but in all the circumstances, and I have explained the background, we voted for it with the reservations that I have mentioned. It is for that reason that my right hon. Friend made his statement yesterday.
Secondly, with regard to paragraph 7, about the 1961 Constitution and the terms for allowing the peoples of Rhodesia to decide their own future, again Lord Caradon specifically reserved one word there. That was the word "immediate", because all along we have made it plain, we did throughout the negotiations, and all parties have done so in this House, that while guaranteed and unimpeded progress to majority rule is the policy of all of us, we do not believe that this could be immediate. For that reason Lord Caradon made that exception. Certainly all of us are committed, and were in the negotiations, to an early opportunity for the Rhodesian people to pronounce on

their own future. That was the reason for the suggested referendum, that was the reason for the Royal Commission. I did not think that there need be any difficulty about that.
With regard to trade, I have said that we are going to study all aspects of trade and oil and make another statement to the House. I certainly agree with one point made by the right hon. Gentleman—we are not going in for a trade embargo or an oil embargo on our own. This would make an utter nonsense of the situation, which has to be properly studied. As everyone realises, the oil embargo is bristling with difficulties if it is going to be effective. Even if there were fairly general support for it, there is the position of Zambia to be considered, along with other countries. These matters will have to be very carefully studied, and while we must insist that whatever sanctions are applied must be effective, we do not want those which are damaging and ineffective, any more than we want to create damage or resort to ineffectiveness. It is very important that in this we proceed only in agreement with others principally concerned.

Mr. Grimond: Can the Prime Minister say whether his statement means that although he may ultimately have to find out from other nations whether they are to join in the embargo, Her Majesty's Government are in favour of such an embargo on oil, and possibly on other trade, too, and that they are now discussing with other nations whether they will join in such an embargo?

The Prime Minister: I assume that the other countries will feel that it is their duty to make effective, as far as it lies within their power, the wishes expressed in the United Nations resolution. I repeat that if we fail to do this we are going to find a much uglier situation, with military force being used, which none of us could control. To this extent, therefore, we are going to sit down with them to see whether an effective embargo can be worked out that will not do lasting damage but which will be effective in getting a settlement in Rhodesia. We are not going to do it on our own.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Can we get this clear from the Prime Minister? I think the House understood him to say only a few weeks ago that the Government were not in favour of coercive


economic action which would bring chaos to the economy of Rhodesia and, therefore, drive the Rhodesians, willy-nilly, into the hands of South Africa. Can he make it absolutely clear that this is still the Government's position?

The Prime Minister: I have said repeatedly, and the House has to face up to this question, that whatever measures we take they must be effective. The quicker they are the less lasting damage there will be. What I have said is that we reject the idea of military intervention. We will examine any other measures. Tobacco is the first, and there are others. We will certainly examine any measures necessary for a quick solution of the problem in Rhodesia. That includes an oil embargo.

Mr. Heller: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the resolution passed by the United Nations is widely welcomed in this country? [Interruption.] Secondly, would he not agree with me that, if unilateral action is not taken, when action is agreed the most effective method of stopping oil going to Rhodesia will be by a naval and military blockade?

The Prime Minister: As to the resolution being widely welcomed, all I can is that it was the best that we could get after very hard work by my right hon. Friend, and it might have been a good deal worse. So far as oil is concerned, the Government of Iran have already proceeded to act under the terms of the resolution, and I imagine that a number of other oil-producing countries will do so. I understand that there have been statements by various oil companies in different parts of the world. I am quite sure that if this is an applicable embargo, and I would need a lot of satisfying on the technical and economic consequences of this embargo, if this is applicable and effective—

Mr. Goodhew: Let us have some straight talk.

The Prime Minister: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman wants me to say that we will introduce an oil embargo tomorrow, or whether he wants me to say that we are examining this properly, which any sane and rational Government would do in the light of all the facts.

Mr. J. Amery: Will the Prime Minister recall that, on the 11th November, he said:
…we do not contemplate … any national action, and, may I say, any international action, for the purpose of coercing even the illegal Government of Rhodesia into a constitutional posture."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11 th November, 1965; Vol. 720, c. 360–1.]
[An HON. MEMBER: "What do you want to do then?"] Will the right hon. Gentleman recognise that we gave our support to the Enabling Bill on the strength of this assurance, and the Government's acceptance of the United Nations resolution seems to go clean counter to the assurance which he gave to the House on Armistice Day? He cannot expect in these circumstances much further support from this side of the House?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman was speaking a long way below the Gangway and will, no doubt, decide for himself how far he can speak for his side of the House. I can at any rate tell him that he will not get three cheers from us. The statement I made, and I have looked it up because it was quoted yesterday, was against the background of military action, military action proposed whether by the United Nations or in any other way. In the debate on the 12th, when we had a very full discussion on this question, I made it clear that while the measures being taken under the Act last week were all that we envisaged at that time, we should need to reconsider the situation, first, in relation to what Mr. Smith's regime did, and, secondly, in relation to the discussions at the United Nations. This we are in process of doing.

Mr. Michael Foot: Does not the Prime Minister think that a more important question than satisfying the Official Opposition, which appears to be attempting to wriggle out of its responsibilities, is how we are to discharge British responsibilities in Rhodesia, in particular the protection of human rights there? Will he further say what response the British Government propose to make to the appeals which have been made in the past week by President Kaunda of Zambia?

The Prime Minister: I do not agree with the opening words of my hon. Friend, because I am sure that a large number


of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite are looking at this problem, as we have to do, in a world setting out against the background of all the dangers which are faced. I do not think that there can be anyone in this House who will readily see, or want to see, the break-up of the Commonwealth or further Chinese penetration of the Afro-Asian bloc.
With regard to the question of human rights, I say—and I am sure the House will agree—that in the light of our experience of the twisting and misuse of the 1961 Constitution, it will be necessary in the future to strengthen the 1961 Constitution in respect of human rights. For example, the Constitutional Council of Rhodesia, whom I met, are anxious to see that their powers are increased. They are much too limited in the matter of human rights at the present time.
In regard to the messages from President Kaunda, of which the House will have some idea, and also of the dangers lying behind them, Mr. Malcolm MacDonald is now in Lusaka and is discussing these questions with President Kaunda.

Lady Tweedsmuir: Will the Prime Minister clarify the methods taken to assert British responsibility for Rhodesia? While all Governments have been willing to give information on Rhodesia to the United Nations, can the Prime Minister explain why we did not participate in any vote on resolutions concerning Rhodesia before U.D.I. but that after U.D.I. we did? Can the right hon. Gentleman explain what appears to be an inconsistency, in that on 12th October Sir Roger Jackling, in speaking on a resolution which asked Britain to prevent U.D.I., said:
My Government has reservations concerning the competence of the United Nations in the question of Rhodesia. For this reason, my delegation will not participate in the vote.

The Prime Minister: I should have thought that the answer was obvious. We have throughout—both Governments—abstained on votes of this kind in the past because we have said that it was an internal matter owing to the fact that under the Convention and under its Constitution Rhodesia is a self-governing country. This position was entirely changed, however, by the illegal declaraation of independence. It is the so-called

Rhodesian Government who have torn up that Constitution and altered the whole situation.
I warned Mr. Smith—I had to speak in pretty strong terms, as will be seen from the published documents—that whatever we had done in defending Rhodesia in the past could not be the position after an illegal declaration of independence.
As I have said, and I do not think that anybody will deny, once this had arisen, with the threat of military invasion from other parts of Africa, this must be a matter of world concern. We still regard it as our responsibility, but we cannot go on as though the rest of the world and of Africa did not exist.

Mr. Dan Jones: Is the Prime Minister aware of the statements that came from Caxton Hall last night? Is he further aware that these statements came from responsible politicians belonging to a responsible political party? Since those observations attempt to support a treasonable Government, do not those statements constitute treason in themselves?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I have seen the statements. They should be treated with the contempt which they deserve. I do not believe that they came from responsible politicians. They came from irresponsible members of a responsible party. The only danger about them is the habit which has been formed in Rhodesia of believing that one or other hon. Members who make a speech of that kind speak for Britain or for their own party. I am sure that they do not.

Mr. Ronald Bell: Will the Prime Minister bear in mind that these are matters of domestic jurisdiction, whether or not they are matters of international concern, whether or not one regards Southern Rhodesia as independent or as dependent upon Britain? That being so, as the Government have recognised since the illegal declaration, is it not a fact that Article 2(7) of the Charter makes it perfectly clear that the United Nations has no competence in this matter?
Why, therefore, did the Government take this matter to the United Nations? What is the alleged need for anticipating action by other people in the United Nations? Since Article 2(7) governs Chapter 7 of the Charter as well as


the other Chapters, what is all this talk about whether it comes under Chapter 7?

The Prime Minister: I explained this in answer to a perfectly reasonable question put by the hon. Lady the Member for Aberdeen, South (Lady Tweedsmuir). The hon. Member must not go through this whole problem with his head buried in the sand. We assert that this is our responsibility. For that reason, it was we who took it to the United Nations to prevent other people doing so. The hon. Member must know perfectly well that, whatever we had done in the Security Council, the matter would have been transferred to the Assembly and there would have been no doubt whatever of the overwhelming desire of members of the Assembly, as had been shown only a week before the illegal declaration, for the use of military force. We believe that this would have been a very dangerous course of action.
I am not sure how hon. Members opposite, with all their legalism about subsections of the kind that have just been quoted by the hon. Member, would have stopped the bloodshed that could have occurred if my right hon. Friend had not taken the action he did.

Mr. Heath: Further to the supplementary question of my noble Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Lady Tweedsmuir), will not the Prime Minister recall that he himself told the House that, as a result of the action in Rhodesia and the Enabling Bill, Rhodesia had become to an even greater extent the responsibility only of the British Government, and therefore the explanation which the Prime Minister has given of the reason why the Government did not abstain—[Interruption.]—is certainly not consistent with what he said before?
Secondly, the Prime Minister stated, also in the debate, that in his view and that of the Government the existing measures which they were taking would be effective. Therefore, anything further to which the right hon. Gentleman agrees is not, in the judgment of the British Government, necessary but is being forced upon them by other Governments.
Thirdly, will the Prime Minister recognise that the last part of his statement about the future position on which those who wish to return to constitu-

tional normality in Rhodesia can work is still far from clear and that it is becoming urgently necessary to have a detailed statement from the Government on this point?

The Prime Minister: It is true, as I said, that we are responsible for Rhodesia, and I said that there is a very special responsibility now in that the Government of Rhodesia legally resides in this country through the Governor. It ought not, however, to be for me to explain to the right hon. Gentleman the difference between our legal responsibility for Rhodesia and the fact that, as I have said, this is a matter for world concern. It is easy for the right hon. Gentleman to deplore that it is a matter for world concern, but he has to answer the question whether he is prepared to see the Commonwealth break up on this issue. This is one of the questions that the right hon. Gentleman must face, and I hope that he will. [HON. MEMBERS: "You answer it."] I am dealing with the point made by the right hon. Gentleman, in which he tried to suggest that I should be concerned—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Bursts of anger and emotion are all right collectively. I hope that hon. Members who shout individually across from either side realise that they do no good to whatever the cause in which they believe.

The Prime Minister: I was explaining why, although we say that we have a special responsibility for Rhodesia, we cannot ignore world opinion. It would be perfectly easy to do so and to stand upon the constitutional doctrine. The result would be bloodshed in Rhodesia and perhaps throughout the whole of Africa. [An HON. MEMBER: "Nonsense."] No right hon. Member has the right in this House to discount the importance of this.
With regard to the right hon. Gentleman's question about discussions with the people of Rhodesia to get a new Constitution. I agree with him that this is very important. I agree with him about the need to spell this out further as we go along, and I hope that we shall be able to do so. The position here, however, is that as soon as the people of Rhodesia are prepared to return to constitutional paths, as soon as the Governor feels that


there is an opportunity of, perhaps, forming a Government among those who will act in a constitutional manner, we would want to deal with those people, without any recrimination or any rancour about the past, on the basis of a resettlement in Rhodesia, starting from the 1961 Constitution with such amendments as, I think, the whole House would agree to be necessary to give effect to the five principles, leading up, I would hope, as quickly as possible to free elections in Rhodesia and then a discussion as to how we can give effect to the question of gradual and unimpeded progress to majority rule.
What is important to say here—and I think that the right hon. Gentleman has this in mind—is that there are too many people still in Rhodesia who think that the only alternative to this illegal action and all the economic consequences that will follow from it would be majority rule tomorrow or the day after. Repeatedly we have all said, on both sides, that this is not a runner at all, and that Rhodesia is not ready for immediate majority rule. I spent a lot of time in Rhodesia talking to various people from all sections of opinion to discuss a basis on which we can move at the earliest possible moment towards it. But we have to get abundant proof of a willingness to work the Constitution and of racial harmony in Rhodesia before we can proceed to the question of majority rule. I think that the right hon. Gentleman was right to stress that we have to spell this out more.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We have had a good run. We must proceed.

Orders of the Day — EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE [MONEY]

Resolution reported,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to continue certain expiring laws, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of such expenses as may be occasioned by the continuance of section 3 of the Emergency Laws (Repeal) Act 1959 and Part I of, and Schedule 1 to, the Commonwealth Immigrants Act, 1962, till the end of December, 1966, and of Part VII of the Licensing Act, 1964, till the end of March, 1967, being expenses which under any Act are to be paid out of such moneys.

Resolution agreed to.

Orders of the Day — EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Sir SAMUEL STOREY in the Chair]

Clause 1.—(CONTINUATION OF CERTAIN EXPIRING ENACTMENTS.)

Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

4.2 p.m.

Mr. W. T. Williams: Before we proceed with Clause 2, I should be grateful to learn from the representatives of the Home Office what action they propose to take to extend the provisions of the Licensing Act so far as they relate to licensing planning committees. Originally licensing planning committees were set up in badly bombed areas of the country to provide that unnecessary licences should not be afforded in areas which by reason of bombing could possibly later change their character. The provision was then made, and at the time of making was a very sensible provision, by which before the licensing magistrates themselves considered the question of granting licences in such areas, the licensing committee should be advised by a licensing planning committee that it had considered the possible need of those areas.
In the passing years the licensing planning committees in most areas of the country have ceased to have any raison d'etre. The position now is that


in some parts of the country, notably Plymouth and London, although these licensing planning committees continue to function, they now hardly function in the way in which it could have been intended that they should function when they were set up. The position, as the Minister and the Home Office know, is that in many of the licensing planning committees the same kind of evidence is received, the same kind of witnesses are heard and the same kind of arguments are deployed as reasons for not granting licences as will be argued in the licensing committees proper. The position, therefore, is that often objectors have two bites at the same cherry, and very often considerable sums of money are spent by those seeking to obtain licences for the sale of liquor, first of all to obtain the consent of the licensing planning committee, only for them to discover that in a later hearing before the licensing magistrates themselves, at the brewster sessions, on the same argument and the same evidence, their application is rejected.
I raised this question last year, and I was told by the then Home Secretary that they were aware of the anomalies which arose from the continuance of these committees which are now obsolescent, but that in previous years—and this I readily concede—large numbers of the licensing planning areas had been abandoned and the licensing planning committees no longer met. I was told that it was the intention of the then Government to explore whether these licensing planning areas should not now cease to have relevance to the granting of licences and that it was the Government's intention as quickly as possible to end this system of licensing planning inquiries.
I therefore ask whether the Government have had an opportunity to look again at this matter. Will they give us an assurance that this anomaly is to be ended, if not immediately then as quickly as possible, with a return to normality, and that these licensing planning committees, which serve so little useful purpose, will be abandoned.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. George Thomas): My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warrington (Mr. W. T. Williams) raised this question last year,

as he rightly said. There are 18 of these planning authorities now exercising their powers. The House will know that in July last the Departmental Committee, which had been set up by the right hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Brooke) to consider and report on these war-damaged areas and licensing planning committees, submitted a report to the Minister which was published as a White Paper on 13th July. Its main recommendation is for the continuance of licensing planning in a modified form. This would involve consultation between the licensing justices and the local planning authorities. Licences would be excluded from their scope. Unlike the present licensing machinery, the new licensing system would not be limited to areas of war damage but could be applied to any area of development.
Obviously the Government do not want to introduce legislation without first consulting the organisations which are likely to be concerned, and they have asked for time to consider this report. We expect that their views will be received before the end of the year, but, clearly, as my hon. and learned Friend will understand, not in time for any new legislation which might be considered necessary to come into force before the present period of extension expires at the end of March 1966. It is therefore necessary for Part VII of the Act of 1964 to continue in force for another year during which time it is hoped to complete the preparatory work of any new legislation which may be necessary.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule.—(ACTS CONTINUED TILL END OF DECEMBER 1966.)

Mr. Peter Thorneycroft: There are two Amendments on the Order Paper in my name. The first is in page 2, leave out lines 6 and 7, and is designed to omit the reference to the Aliens Restriction (Amendment) Act, 1919. The second is to leave out lines 15 and 16 and thereby omit the reference to the Commonwealth Immigrants Act, 1962. It may be for the convenience of the Committee if we take the two Amendments together.

The Chairman: I had been warned that a request of this kind might be made to me and I have looked at the debates on similar Amendments to the Bill last year. It seems to me that on that occasion the two debates ran on different lines and each of them involved a number of considerations peculiar to itself. It therefore seems to me that if the Committee seeks to debate the two Amendments together it might run into some confusion. If it were to appear to be the unanimous wish of the Committee to debate the two Amendments together I would not, of course, stand in its way, but if it be the wish of any hon. Member to debate the two Amendments separately, as they always have been debated up to now, I think it would be my duty to call them separately on this occasion also.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: I regard it as absolutely necessary for these two Amendments to be taken separately.

Mr. Thorneycroft: I do not want to press the point. It was a question only of the convenience of the Committee. The Government themselves have suggested a committee to consider both aliens and Commonwealth immigrants, but, naturally, though I thought that it might facilitate the business of the present Committee, I will not press the matter further.
I beg to move, in page 2, to leave out lines 6 and 7.
I move this first Amendment very shortly because it has now become a very narrow point. It concerns the way in which we deal with aliens. I was beginning to read the other day A. J. Taylor's provocative account of English history between 1914 and 1945. In the opening paragraph of that book he recalls a happier world where any foreigner could live here without a passport and without even reporting to the police. It is worth reflecting that there was a time in this country when our affairs were conducted in that manner. It appears from the Schedule that our legislation on aliens really emerged in wartime legislation and in particular in Orders passed immediately after the First World War. Anyone who studies it will realise that it smacks somewhat of that atmosphere.
As a result, hon. Members on both sides of the Committee have come to the

view that it ought to be reformed. I do not think that there is any difference of view about it. I shall argue later on the other Amendment that we should not postpone necessary action in other fields while this goes on, but I am entirely at one with the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), who has taken a leading part in this matter, that there ought to be a reform.
The Government have conceded this, because in the debate on the Address they said specifically that they recognise the force of these arguments, advanced from both sides of the House of Commons, and that they are prepared to set up an independent committee. The hon. and learned Member for Northampton suggested—and this is really the only point left in this discussion—that the inquiry into this legislation might be better done by a Select Commttee of the House rather than by an independent committee set up by the Home Office. This is the only point left on the aliens side.
4.15 p.m.
I do not wish to take too pedantic a view. I shall be guided very much by what the Home Secretary says, but I think that there is a good deal of force in the argument of the hon. and learned Member for Northampton. This is a matter where the rights and interests of the executive and judiciary tend to overlap and coincide. There are difficult issues of how far one can have an appeal to the judiciary from a decision of the Executive. These matters are well recognised and understood in the Home Office. There is the question of how far a Select Committee is a good instrument for varying legislation. It has one achievement to its credit, namely, the Army Act, which I think most people will agree was rather a success when it was referred to a Select Committee. That Committee examined the matter and an Army Act which has received general approval since then was adopted.
On the other hand, a Select Committee would probably take longer than an indedendent committee. I hope that the Home Secretary will agree that in any event the interests and views of Members of the House of Commons, whatever inquiry he sets up, should be taken seriously into account in these matters. Therefore, on this Amendment, which is technical, I would only say—I do not


want to lose the Act; I merely want to give an opportunity for debate—that we ought to have an inquiry and that the views of the hon. and learned Member for Northampton should be listened to on the question whether it would be better to have a Select Committee or otherwise.

Mr. R. T. Paget: There is another point which seems to me to be very important and that is the question of the terms of reference of the inquiry body, whichever it may be. At present these are confined to what I should have thought relatively unimportant points on the procedure of appeal against the refusal of admission or against expulsion, but the grounds on which people are expelled seem to be much more important, and there are also the wider questions of naturalisation.

Mr. Thorneycroft: That is a perfectly fair point. A very good article by Mr. Rogerson appeared in Public Law on this subject, which I am sure those of us who are interested have been studying. It is perfectly true that there is the question of grounds for deportation as well, and I think that the terms of reference need looking at. I have no doubt that the Home Office will take into account representations made on that. When we come to the wider issues of the next Amendment there are a great many other things which need looking at as well. At present I am restricting myself narrowly to this Amendment.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: The right hon. M ember for Monmouth (Mr. Thorneycroft) has moved an Amendment to the Schedule which has been moved until now by my party ever since 1951 and by hon. Members opposite every year between 1945 and 1951. As far as I remember, today is the first occasion on which we have had the support of the right hon. Member for Monmouth. I am grateful for it, belated though it is.
I agree with the right hon. Member that the Government's promise goes a little beyond similar promises made by every other previous Government in the whole of that period. They have all said, "We agree with you in principle". They have all said, "We are considering it." They have all said, "If you will only leave the matter alone we will perhaps consider it during the year and perhaps by next year we will have some improved

machinery or legislation." The important thing is that until this year no single step has been taken to implement any of these promises. There have been the same pious, platitudinous expressions of principles. There has been no opposition from any quarter. There has been no disagreement that the position in which we have been all these years is absolutely intolerable to any liberal or freedom-loving man, but there has been absolutely no action whatever to change the situation.
This is not true of the present Government. They have promised some action, but I am not clear what action they have promised. They have promised to set up some sort of committee to do something or other. I do not regard that in that form as a satisfaction of the objections and criticisms which have been universal for almost two generations in the House of Commons.
It is manifestly wrong that the power of liberty should remain in the arbitrary decision of one man, and it becomes even more oppressive, tyrannical and insupportable when the Home Secretary adopts the position not merely that he has the right to decide but that he is in any practical sense not responsible to this House for what he does or omits to do. He accepts a general responsibility in principle. We can attack him on the Home Office Vote. We can put Questions to him. We can raise Adjournment debates. But so long as the Home Secretary, my right hon. and learned Friend or any other, takes the view that he is under no duty to explain to the House the reasons for what he does, he is not being responsible to this House at all and, if that were possible, he makes the position even more intolerable than it was at the beginning.
We want to be assured that the Government are now committed to the principle that this shall never again be an arbitrary decision of any single Minister but that it shall be a judicial proceeding, the man against whom the decision is taken being entitled to know what decision has been taken, why it has been taken, what facts are alleged against him, and being given an opportunity to meet those facts instead of having the whole thing surrounded by a conspiratorial silence in which the Home Secretary accepts responsibility for numbers of cases about which, I am absolutely certain, he has no personal knowledge whatever.
In order to illustrate how wrong this principle is, I shall tell the Committee of one individual case. I am not asking the Home Secretary to do anything about it. This is not the occasion for that. What I shall do is to recite the details of the case so that the Committee may see how unjust the situation established by the Act, which the Government still ask us to continue, can be. Perhaps I ought not to give the name of the man concerned. If anyone challenges me to give the name, I can. I think that my right hon. and learned Friend will know of the case to which I refer.
This man is now 67 years of age. He married a British subject. He married her in Cairo, where he lived for 40 years. He was in Cairo a refugee from Eastern Europe. He established a prosperous business, but in 1957 or thereabouts he was expelled by the Egyptian Government. He was not expelled by the Egyptian Government for any act of his. He was expelled by the Egyptian Government because he had a British wife, and the British wife was expelled by the Egyptian Government as a direct consequence of actions taken by the British Government. He was admitted, with his wife, to this country. He is stateless. There is no other country to which he can go. He came here with his wife having lost everything he had built up in the whole of his life and having lost it involuntarily for no reason for which he himself bore any responsibility.
That was seven or eight years ago. He applied for naturalisation. He applied too soon. He was told that he had applied too soon and he was asked whether he would apply later. He waited till the five years were more than over, and then he asked for naturalisation. He remains an alien only because naturalisation was refused—or, rather, it was not refused, but it was not granted. He was told—I quote the letter:
With reference to your application for grant of a certificate of naturalisation, I am directed by the Secretary of State"—

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is going wide of the matters we can discuss here. It has been ruled before that naturalisation is not discussable on this Bill.

Mr. Silverman: I entirely agree, Sir Samuel. Of course it is not, and if I were complaining about what the Home Secretary had done regarding the application for naturalisation, I should certainly be out of order and I should at once accept your Ruling that I ought not to pursue the matter further. But I am not complaining of that. I am using this case as an illustration from which the Committee may perceive how an arbitrary discretion can work, and the arbitrary discretion in this case is related to a man who comes within the ambit of the Act which we are now considering. He remains within the Act only because of the arbitrary exercise of the Home Secretary's discretion under another Act which enables him to exercise an arbitrary discretion over a man under this Act. I am pointing out that this works with manifest injustice.
It was said in the letter that the Secretary of State had
given full and careful consideration to all the facts of the case, but …
but what?—
he is not prepared to reach a decision on it at present".
Why ever not? I tried to find out. The letter was written on 31st January, 1964, not by my right hon. and learned Friend but by his predecessor, but when I raised the question some months later the present Government had taken over control and my right hon. and learned Friend had assumed responsibility.
As I have said, this is a man of 67 years of age. During the seven or eight years he has been here, he has been in and out of hospital on, I think, seven or eight occasions. He is suffering from an advanced heart disease. He is in constant peril of his life. He is here through no fault of his own. He is here stateless through no fault of his own. He is here by reason of acts for which he bore no responsibility but for which this country did bear responsibility.
It is two years since he made the application. He has still not had an answer. When I say, "Please tell me why", the answer from the Home Secretary is, "It is not our policy to tell you why". So the man still does not know what there is against him, why his application is not granted, what there is for him to answer,


and what chance he has of ever removing anything which is alleged to be—

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman really is going wide of what we are discussing.

Mr. Silverman: What I am saying, Sir Samuel, is that any Act which gives a Minister power to decide, perhaps, a man's fate, certainly his liberty and freedom to move about, and which puts that power in the Minister's hands without laying upon him any obligation to tell the man concerned what he has against him—

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is referring to an Act which we are not now discussing.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir Frank Soskice): Sir Samuel, my hon. Friend has given, from his point of view, a full account of the case, with the permission of the Chair, but I take it that, if I seek to reply, I shall be ruled out of order.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. Paget: On a point of order. I have taken part in these debates for many years and I understand the distinction to be that we cannot discuss naturalisation as such, because that arises under another Act, but we can discuss the results of refusal of naturalisation, which puts people and holds people within the Act which we are now discussing. In other words, we can discuss what happens to people who are refused naturalisation, because they then come under the law which we are now discussing.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: What brings what I am saying within the bounds of order on this occasion, Sir Samuel, is that if my right hon. and learned Friend thinks that he has any good grounds for any allegation of any importance, or any accusation of any force against this man, he can put him in prison five minutes from now and deport him from the country at any moment without telling me anything of what is in his mind and without telling me what he has against this man and without giving this man any right of appeal.

Sir F. Soskice: On a point of order. I quite follow that argument, but I should like to have your guidance, Sir Samuel.

My hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Sydney Silverman) having given a full account, as he sees it, of the case, how is the course of the debate to go on? I am not seeking to inhibit my hon. Friend, but shall I be able to say, "The facts are these", or, "The reason I cannot give the facts is this", or, "I am inhibited by Statute from giving the facts", or, "It is contrary to public policy to state the facts in a particular case"? If not, the debate will have gone on with a statement from one side and no reply to it.

Mr. Silverman: Those are exactly the reasons why for many years I have thought this position to be unsatisfactory. When my right hon. and learned Friend sat on the Opposition benches, he thought that it was unsatisfactory and he must still believe that it is unsatisfactory or he would not have recommended the setting up of a committee to advise him on how the situation should be altered. I do not dissent from what my right hon. and learned Friend is saying. He knows the position to be unsatisfactory, as I believe it to be.
The right hon. Member for Monmouth does not intend to press the Amendment precisely because he accepts the Government undertaking to appoint a committee to change the situation. All I am doing is to point out what the situation is and will continue to be if we pass the Bill in its present form. That is exactly what the situation is and I am saying that it is wrong and that it does not carry the acquiescence, let alone the active consent, of any hon. Member and certainly not the acquiescence or active consent of my right hon and learned Friend himself. He is himself proposing to change it.
I admit that the complaint about not dealing with this man's application for naturalisation arises not under this but under some other Act and at this stage I am not making any complaint about the way in which that application was dealt with. I reserve the freedom to deal with that on another and more appropriate occasion. But that does not make it inappropriate to use it today as an illustration of the principle which is embodied in this Act and which the Government are so far asking us to continue.

The Chairman: Perhaps I have allowed the debate to go somewhat wider than I should. We cannot discuss the Home Secretary's action under the administration of the Naturalisation Acts.

Mr. Silverman: I am not doing that.

The Chairman: I think that the hon. Gentleman has made his point. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary asked to what extent he would be able to reply. I ask him to limit what he has to say as nearly as he can to being within the rules of order on this particular issue. I ask him not to go into greater detail than is absolutely necessary.

Sir F. Soskice: On a point of order. I wish to defend myself against the charges which have been made in respect of the case which has been mentioned. I would be grateful for your Ruling, Sir Samuel.

Mr. Paget: A previous case in a very similar situation which I raised in some detail and which concerned a Hungarian in my constituency was answered by the then Home Secretary and answered most satisfactorily—he granted naturalisation.

The Chairman: I do not think that we can take this matter any further. The position is quite clear. Naturalisation can be mentioned where relevant to the Act now under discussion and no further.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: I do not in the least differ from what my right hon. and learned Friend is saying or, with respect, Sir Samuel, from what you are saying. If my right hon. and learned Friend thinks that I have stated any of the facts incorrectly, I hope that he will tell me what I have stated incorrectly. All I am endeavouring to do, and all I have endeavoured to do over the years on these occasions, is to place the Committee in possession of a set of relevant facts. If I have stated them wrongly, I am ready to correct them, but I do not think that I have stated them wrongly. It may be that I have not done justice to the Home Secretary's position. I do not know, and he does not let me know. He does not tell me his reasons and therefore I cannot form any opinion as to whether they are good or bad reasons. He does not let the man concerned know what his reasons are and that man,

therefore, cannot form any opinion as to whether they are good or bad reasons. It is therefore impossible to say whether the reasons are good or bad. However, that is not the point I am making.
I am making the totally different and germane point that there is a situation in which a man's whole fortune and future depend on the arbitrary decision of one man without any reason being given and without any evidence and without any opportunity to reply. It is true, as my right hon. and learned Friend has said, that action can be taken by the man going to the Bow Street magistrate, but if the Bow Street magistrate decided that my right hon. and learned Friend was wrong, what power would that give to anybody? My right hon. Friend would not be bound by that decision. All I am saying is that this is the clearest possible instance, even though its merits are not now discussable because the issue arises under another Act, of how wrong it is in an Act such as this to give sole discretion to a Minister to refuse even to give his reasons or to accept his responsibility for what he has done. I do not propose to take the matter further. I think that the point is clear to everybody.
I am not asking my right hon. and learned Friend now to give me the reasons which he has always refused to give. I shall ask him at some other time on a more appropriate occasion. However, I am asking the Committee to say that we should not part with the Amendment, or allow it to be withdrawn, without getting the clearest possible undertakings from my right hon. and learned Friend about the Government's determination to bring this tyrannical, oppressive and illiberal system to an end at the earliest possible moment.

Mr. George Thomas: My hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Sydney Silverman)—

Mr. Stanley Orme: On a point of order. Can I assume that after my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary has finished his speech, we shall still be able to discuss this part of the Aliens Act?

The Chairman: The hon. Gentleman seems to forget that we are in Committee.

Mr. Thomas: I should not like to stand in the way of my hon. Friend the Member


for Salford, West (Mr. Orme). I am merely replying to the right hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Thorneycroft) and my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne. My right hon. and learned Friend will reply to the debate and will, no doubt, deal with any questions.
One question on which I presume the whole Committee will agree is that we must have control over aliens—over their admission and, when necessary, over their movements. The present control of aliens is exercised under the Aliens Order, 1953, as amended by successive Aliens Orders in 1957, 1960 and 1964. There are no powers other than these Orders for controlling either the entry of foreigners into the United Kingdom or their activities after admission and, therefore, we are bound to seek from the Committee permission for their renewal.
The right hon. Member for Monmouth and my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne raised the question of the committee which it has been announced we propose to set up to look into the question of possible appeal procedures for both aliens and Commonwealth citizens. I tell the House at once, as I realise I told the House last year, that we accept the need for permanent legislation in this field. But now that this committee is to inquire into what right of appeal or other remedy should be available to aliens and Commonwealth citizens who are refused permission to land or who are required to leave the country, quite clearly we must await the results of its work. Sir Roy Wilson, a very distinguished lawyer who will be known to the Committee, has agreed to serve as the chairman of this committee. Until this body presents its report and a Bill can be prepared and fitted into the Parliamentary timetable, the only immediate courses before us are to pass this Measure or to enter the coming year with no control at all over aliens.
I turn to the question of the terms of reference of the committee. Last year, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) did not regard as unimportant the issue as to whether there should be the right of appeal in questions of deportation or of refusal to land. It has been always regarded, and rightly so, by my hon. and learned Friend as a most important question whether there should be any form of

appeal or any limit on the powers of our officers who exercise their duties on behalf of the Home Secretary. I believe that the committee will welcome the fact that this independent committee of inquiry has been given the task of studying the question and then reporting to us.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has indicated in a letter to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton, and I believe in the House, why he does not believe that a Select Committee is the best way of tackling this question. We do not want to explore the whole field of powers concerning aliens. The power of deportation must be in the hands of the Executive. Whoever seeks to govern in the land must have this ultimate power when people abuse our hospitality or prove to be unsavoury characters. Of course, the country has a right to say that there are some people who are better beyond our shores than here if they fail to behave.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: My hon. Friend will know that there is nobody in the House who disagrees with that. What I want to know from him is exactly what he means by "prove". One can prove anything against a man if one does not tell him what the charge is.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Thomas: If my hon. Friend will have patience, I will come to that question in due course.
As I come to it, may I give some information briefly and quickly about the working of our controls during the past year. During the period 1st October, 1964 to 30th September, 1965, 4,154 foreigners were refused leave to land at United Kingdom ports. But this figure must he viewed in perspective against the overall total of nearly 2,700,000 foreigners who entered the United Kingdom during the same period. Therefore, refusals of leave to land amounted to no more than one for ever 650 people who were permitted to enter.
Of those refused admission, 1,770—well over one-third of the total—had come to work here but lacked valid labour permits. Of the remainder, 742 had insufficient means to support themselves during their proposed stay, 97 were unacceptable on medical grounds and 108 were stowaways. Of those who were unacceptable on medical grounds, some


50 per cent. were suffering from some sort of mental illness and others suffered from other forms of illness which made it essential for the immigration officer to decline to allow them to come in. As I say, 108 were stowaways, 339 did not have valid travel documents, 148 came without a visa in circumstances which required one and 149 sought permanent settlement for which they were ineligible. There were 478 technical refusals, which covered, in the main, people passing in transit through the country.
The technical refusals of leave to land may be necessary because the people concerned have been deported from another country, they are passing through the United Kingdom on the way home and their travel documents are of very restricted validity. The remaining 323 who are refused leave to land could be described as undesirable for a number of reasons. Eighty-two of them were aliens with criminal propensities, known to be drug traffickers.
I should like to remind the Committee that our immigration officers carry a great trust on behalf of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, and thus on behalf of the House of Commons, and they deserve our thanks for the compassionate, humane and vigilant way in which they undertake this task. During the past year I have spent a fair amount of my own time at the ports, and the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) came with me earlier this year to London Airport. Anyone who has firsthand experience of the immigration officers and who see how they set about their work will appreciate that we owe them an enormous debt.
I turn to the question of expulsion. The ultimate sanction must be available, not only against foreigners recommended for deportation by the criminal courts, but against those who have broken the law by failure or refusal to comply with the conditions on which they were allowed to enter the country. But deportation is by no means frequently resorted to. The average number of foreigners deported in recent years has been rather less than 100 a year, and in 1964 the total was 59. During the first nine months of the current year, 54 deportations were carried out.
When it is proposed to deport a foreigner who has settled here for two years or more, as the right hon. Gentleman opposite well knows, the practice since 1956 has been, except in security cases or where deportation is recommended by a criminal court, to give the person concerned an opportunity to make representations to and to be legally represented before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Bow Street. Since those arrangements were made, 117 foreigners have been eligible to make representations, but only 65 decided to avail themselves of the opportunity. In 45 of the cases that he has considered, the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate has concurred in the proposal to deport, and I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne and the Committee that in no single case has deportation been proceeded with where the Chief Magistrate did not concur when the case had been taken to him.

Mr. Paget: May I ask the hon. Gentleman how many there were in which he did concur?

Mr. Thomas: He concurred in 65 cases out of 117, which is roughly 70 per cent. It is, in fact, just over 69 per cent., and I have called it 70 per cent.
The deportation figures must be looked at in relation to the total number of foreigners that there are in the United Kingdom. There are always well over 400,000 here at any one time, and during the holiday season the figure may be well over half a million.
It would be wrong to present the image that we are in any way illiberal in the way that we approach the problem. For instance, factors such as long residence or marriage to a British subject are invariably taken into account before a deportation order is made, not only by those who hear the representations but by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary who takes the ultimate decision.
I should like the Committee to know also that with regard to the destination of a deportee, the deportation order merely requires him to leave and to stay out. In practice, he can only be sent to the country of which he is a national or to some other country willing to receive him, and I have myself known


cases of people who were about to be deported and who asked not to go back to their own country but to another country which was willing to accept them.
Sir Samuel, I know by your Ruling that I cannot go into detail in reply to my hon. Friend abort the case that he raised. I have discussed that case with him, and I have no doubt that I shall discuss it with him again. I look forward to that.
I hope that the Committee is going to give us these controls, as I believe it will, realising that we have gone a long way to meet the wishes of the Committee as they were expressed last year, in particular by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton and although he has not got the Select Committee for which he asked, he has succeeded and the Committee has succeeded in obtaining a committee which now will inquire quite independently into whether there should be a right of appeal to people refused admission and to people faced with deportation, so that the nightmare to which my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne referred will be under examination. With that understanding I hope that the Committee will agree to renew these proposals.

Mr. Philip Goodhart: Before the Joint Under-Secretary sits down, I should like to ask him one question. As he will remember, in paragraph 6 of the White Paper on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration—the ombudsman White Paper—it is said that amongst those who will have access to the Parliamentary Commissioner will be
persons living abroad if their complaint is about the administration of individuals' rights or obligations arising here.
Is it intended by the Government that the ombudsman should consider appeals from a decision of the immigration officer on refusing aliens admission to this country?

Mr. Thomas: The hon. Gentleman has asked me a question to which the answer is in the negative. I think, therefore, that the best thing that we can do is to await the advice that we shall receive from the independent committee.

Mr. Paget: My hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary said that since 1951 this subject had been raised always on the other side. Quite frankly, it has been raised by me wherever I have been sitting. Last year it was raised on this side, and it would have been raised on this side again if the right hon. Gentleman had not beaten me by about 30 seconds.
I want now to come back to the issues in the case and to state the reasons why both the form and the terms of reference of the proposed inquiry seem to me to be wholly unsatisfactory.
There are three matters which have to be looked at about an alien. How does he get here? What happens to him when he is here? What happens to him as and when he goes? I shall deal with them under those heads.
Firstly, as far as admission is concerned, I am not for a moment questioning the fact that it must ultimately be a question of discretion. The country must have a discretion as to whom it chooses to admit and, because there has to be a discretion there, a form of judicial tribunal seems to me to be unsatisfactory and always has. I do not think that a form of judicial tribunal can substitute itself effectively for a departmental discretion. All that it can really do is to deal with the specific matters which may be referred to it within the discretion. I will come back to that in a moment.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: I appreciate the difficulties that my hon. and learned Friend has in mind, but he will know, will he not, that there are countries which have found ways out of the difficulties, notably the United States of America where, if an immigrant is refused leave to land, he has an appeal to a quasi-judicial tribunal, so that at least the man knows what is alleged against him.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. Paget: There again my hon. Friend has picked on what seems to me to be the vital point, namely, to know what is alleged against the person concerned, and this is what I have always urged. I believe that a person should have the right to know, first, what is alleged against him, and, secondly, when he knows that and challenges matters of fact, he should be


able to ask the Department to take another look at those facts. That is all that I have ever asked for on this issue.
People coming here are interviewed by an immigration officer who has to come to a decision. I do not think that it would be practical at that point to interject a judicial hearing, but what I think one can do is to say that if he is refused entry he must be told why, and told specifically, and if he challenges any of the reasons he may ask the immigration officer to hold back his decision. There will, of course, have to be some arrangement about where he can be held while the specific facts which he challenges are examined.
If he is refused entry on medical grounds, I think it may be not unreasonable to say, "I should like a second opinion on this one" because medical grounds are often very tragic in these circumstances, particularly when it is a question of families reuniting, and that sort of thing, and I should not have thought that one was giving away too much by saying that if the person concerned challenges the particular illness, or the contention that it is a danger to the community into which he is going, a second opinion might be obtained.
I do not propose to go through all the examples, but to take only a few. If a man is accused of being a drug trafficker, I think he should be told where he was said to have committed such a crime. It might be said that it happened in Cairo. He may answer, "I have never been to Cairo in my life. The chap you have in mind is someone else, with my name". I do not think that that sort of thing occurs very often, but it can occur, and in those circumstances I should have thought it would be reasonable for the man concerned to be told why he is not being allowed to enter. I think he should be entitled to say, "This is wrong. You can verify what I have said in the following ways: please do so". That seems to me to be a fairly reasonable thing to do and it is the only thing for which I have asked.
That is all the right of appeal I have asked for, and I cannot see how one can have any effective appeal unless the man is given reasons for not being allowed to enter the country. He should be given

the reasons, and, if he disputes any of them, provided he is prepared to cover the expense of staying here while the inquiry is made, in the event of the inquiry going against him, he should be in a position to ask for the reasons to be verified.
So much for that, and I now come to what I think is the important thing here, and that is not the provision of the right of appeal against the refusal to admit, but an examination of the grounds, or the general rules, for making these exclusions. I agree that there has to be a discretion here in working on certain general rules, but that discretion and those rules ought to be examined by a committee.
For instance, generally speaking, there does not seem to be any very good reason for denying anybody the right to come here if he can support himself and is, in this sense, a sort of built-in export in that he provides currency to support himself and that currency is usable in foreign markets. I do not see why that sort of person should not be allowed in. I should have thought that that was the kind of question which a committee might consider. Provided the person concerned is respectable, if he wishes to come here, and he can provide the cost of his upkeep and thereby provide us with currency and so help our balance of payments, I do not see why he should not be allowed in. He would not seem to hurt us, and I do not see why we should hurt him. At the moment such a person is not allowed to enter this country.
I come next to the question of health. I should have thought that a committee might be given certain guidance on this. Obviously a line has to be drawn somewhere. We do not want to exclude somebody merely because he has a nasty cold, but we certainly do want to exclude a person who has tertiary syphilis. A line must be drawn somewhere between those two extremes, and I should have thought that a committee could look at it and see whether one could be.
I deal next with the work requirement, the permits which are issued through the Ministry of Labour. Surely this is something which a committee can consider to see whether this can be brought within the general structure of the law.
Another point which is not covered is whether a person should be entitled to


come here if he is coming here because he wants to marry.
The final point with which I wish to deal is the question of security. Here there has to be an ultimate discretion, but I cannot believe that a lot of people are excluded because in a security sense they are a danger to the country. If we really think a man is a spy, I should have thought that we would be only too pleased to have him in jurisdiction where we can watch him for a bit to enable us to discover his security network. I see little point in excluding people because we think they are spies. Other countries have intelligence budgets and I should prefer them to use their funds on spies we know rather than on spies we do not know.

Mr. Michael Foot: They are only posing as spies to get in.

Mr. Paget: If they are only posing as spies to get in, there seems to be no security reason for excluding them.
What we want—and I think that we must be together here—is that the person concerned should be given the reasons for his exclusion. We want general rules on which a discretion may be exercised. We want some kind of power to be able to ask the Minister to think again and to have another look where a decision is challenged because a fact is challenged.
When a man comes in he should be under our rule of law. I can see little object in making the law different for him. One of the verses of Exodus says:
One law shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you.
That seems to be a very good general guide. But we are told that we want to control the movements of aliens here. Again, I should have thought that a committee ought to consider the question whether all this rather elaborate machinery to control the movement of aliens is of any value.
It works admirably for the alien whom there is no point in controlling—the alien who is complying with the law—but it works not at all for the alien who wishes to avoid the law. That can be tested by the number of au pair girls and students who disappear. Anybody who is trying to evade the law simply disappears from the register. It is only those who are ccmplying with the law anyway who

remain registered. Therefore, I doubt whether the procedure is worth the money, trouble and time that it takes. This, again, is the sort of thing which a committee should look at.
Then—and from a libertarian point of view this is far and away the most important case—there is the man who is subject to an expulsion order which cannot be exercised because there is no country which will take him. He becomes a person totally without any rights. He can be imprisoned indefinitely, without a charge. He is in the fullest sense of the word an outlaw. An expulsion order which is made on a man and which cannot be executed is an order of outlawry.
In my view, it is in flagrant contradiction to the provisions of the Charter of Human Rights. In very much the same sort of position is the man who is refused naturalisation. We cannot go into the workings of the Act; we can only deal with its results, because its results are the people who are subject to this Act. Here we have people placed in a position of less than citizenship—unable to become solicitors, or to join a number of other professions, or to join the public service. They are held in this position of inferiority indefinitely.

5.15 p.m.

The Temporary Chairman (Sir Herbert Butcher): Order. The hon. and learned Member is wandering rather far from the subject of the debate. He must not discuss the question of naturalisation.

Mr. Paget: With respect, Sir Herbert, that is not so. The Amendment deals precisely with what happens to aliens who are here and to the man who is refused naturalisation. I cannot refer to what happens up to that point, but once a man is refused naturalisation he comes right within the terms of the Bill, and I submit that I am completely in order in discussing his position.

The Temporary Chairman: I have been listening to the hon. and learned Gentleman very carefully. At the moment he is approaching the edge of the precipice. In the debate which took place in 1961 the ground which the hon. and learned Member is now traversing was denied him by the Chairman, and I shall follow my predecessor's example.

Mr. Paget: It comes near the line. If I fell over the precipice before I shall watch my position today.
A man who is denied naturalisation remains under this Act. He cannot join a number of professions. He may have been an articled clerk, but he cannot become a solicitor. There are many disabilities about his position. He has no means of escaping them. He can be given no reason why he is maintained in this inferior position. The Declaration of Human Rights, to which we are parties, provides that every man shall have a right of nationality and a right to change his nationality. That is something to which we have subscribed. We are dealing only with people who are here as permanent residents—people who will remain here in the future. What is the excuse for keeping them in an inferior position?

The Temporary Chairman: Order. That is exactly the ground that I indicated that the hon. and learned Member must not develop.

Mr. Paget: Precisely. I have finished with that point. But this kind of consideration is excluded not only from this debate; it is also very wrongly excluded from examination by the committee which my right hon. Friend is thinking of setting up.
Thirdly, I come to the question of expulsion. This question covers some very important points. The Under-Secretary said that the man who was expelled was generally sent to his own country, which was the only place to which he could be sent. That is not always so. This power is sometimes used as an alternative to extradition in cases which are not covered by the Extradition Acts. That was the position with Dr. Soblen. He had the opportunity of going to Czechoslovakia. The Czechs said that they would take him and would be pleased to do so, in spite of which he was put on an aeroplane to America, where he was going to be punished for an offence for which he could not have been extradited.
There was an even earlier case, when we were in alliance with France. It is a House of Lords case, and concerned the Duke of Château-Thierry, who was trying to avoid military service and who wanted to go to America but whom we returned to France at the request of the

French Government. Whether expulsion should be used as a substitute for extradition when the House has given no powers to extradite is at least a matter which ought to have been within the terms of reference of any worthwhile committee on this subject.
Those are my broad objections to the terms of reference. If we are to have a civilised aliens law which complies with the Declaration of Human Rights we require an examination by a committee with far wider terms of reference than merely the power to see how we should set up a tribunal to consider questions of discretion, the terms of discretion being outside the tribunal's jurisdiction.
I now come to the means, which is a Select Committee, for which I have often asked. I believe that a committee of investigation—a Royal Commission or anything of that sort—is an inefficient means of preparing legislation. It gets out of step with the Department which has to operate the legislation and, when it makes its recommendations, the Department has no difficulty in shooting them down. This sort of consideration is a pretext for not doing things.
The right hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Brooke) may or may not confirm my opinion in this, but I think that it has always been a tradition of the Home Office—at any rate, since I have dealt with them—that their motto is, "Never give a reason: it always causes trouble". A Department of that sort, if it is given the last word, will find admirable reasons for not giving reasons for ignoring suggestions by a committee.
The whole point of a Select Committee is that while it is working the dialogue with the Department is continuous. The Select Committee makes its proposal; the Department gives its reasons why not. Those reasons are then thrashed out between the Select Committee and the Department, with reference, if necessary, to the Minister, who can go to the Select Committee. Step by step, the thing is worked out and agreed. It is no use imposing legislation on a Department which has to make it work and will not do so. Agreement has to be reached. But it was under such a system that the War Office, having said that a comprehensive Act was impracticable, in fact worked out and produced the Army Act.
There is a continual dialogue, phase by phase. The Department cannot simply say, "You cannot do that." They have to give their reasons, and one can then go into them and answer them and see how, if possible, to get what one wants. Therefore, by this continual dialogue between the two sides, an Act is built up, and one gets what one is looking for. One would never get that from a Royal Commission or anything of the sort. The conversation is broken off and recommendations are made which are unacceptable to the Department; and the Department has the last word.
The Select Committee of which I was a member met for about a year and we worked out and drafted an Act to do something which the Department had for years said could not be done. The Government agreed to it without one amendment; the House agreed to it without one amendment; and, after five years, only five minor amendments were required. I do not know why a procedure as successful as that could not be attempted again. What we should do now on the basis of the reply we have heard in advance, I think, is to say to the Government, "No, we are not giving you this renewal now. Take it back and think again before Report stage and see if you cannot give us a better answer than you have so far indicated."
For years, Governments have blackmailed this House with the threat of suicide, and said, "If you do not do what we ask, if you ever defeat us, there will be an election." I do not think anybody will suggest for a moment that there will be an election if we send this back to the Government and insist that they have another look at it before Report. Unless Parliament sometimes does something like that, we will lapse into futility. It is true that, in a modern system strong government must be given on the great and general questions, but no dialogue is satisfactory if one party to it always has its way.
There are many occasions—and I believe that this is one—when this House, if it respects itself, should insist upon having its way for a change. We must see what is said in reply, but this is certainly the direction in which my mind is running at the moment.

Mr. Antony Buck: I am attracted by the ideas just expressed by

the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget). As our inclination, even more than his, is to say "No" to the Government, we shall listen with particular care to what the Home Secretary says in reply to the point which the hon. and learned Member made. The idea of a Select Committee has great attractions over the type of committee which is proposed at the moment. I am concerned with the operation of the present Regulations under the Act and the way in which the Act works at the moment. This has a direct bearing on what the hon. and learned Gentleman said about security.
I should like from the Home Secretary an explanation of why the Act concerning impositions relates to au pair girls from behind the Iron Curtain. At the moment—this will interest hon. Gentlemen opposite below the Gangway—there is a general prohibition by the Government, to the effect that au pair girls from behind the Iron Curtain should not stay here for more than one year. This seems a preposterous situation. The reason given is that it is for security. The idea of the Hungarian Government filling up this country with a lot of little au pair Mata Haris seems to me utterly absurd.
This situation came to my notice—as both the Joint Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State and the Home Secretary know—because of an individual case which was brought to my attention, that of Miss Tunde Balogh. Whether she is any relation to a certain adviser of the Government I know not. All I know is that she is a young lady—I did not have the good fortune to meet her—who impressed others as being attractive and very pro-British. She had been over here for a year in an au pair capacity and she wanted to stay on for a further period. There was no suggestion that she was a spy. She was recognised as working here so as to learn English. She wanted to stay over here, and those employing her wanted her to stay.
It was through the British Council that the case was brought to my notice. The Home Office said "She must go home on the dot after one year." I wrote to the Joint Under-Secretary about this. I have always regarded him as the most courteous of men, but on this occasion his letter was a little curt. I talked to him


about the position and, eventually, we managed—as a great concession—to get permission for Miss Balogh to stay for an extra three weeks. At first, because she came from behind the Iron Curtain, she had been refused permission to stay for even a short period to take a holiday to go to the Edinburgh Festival. At first the Home Office refused to allow her to stay for even an extra two or three weeks. However, eventually she got that small concession.
5.30 p.m.
How easily and how readily does the Home Office regard "security" as being the term or broad category for excluding people? Is it sound sense to exclude all au pair girls from behind the Iron Curtain on security grounds? If there are other grounds, cannot we be told them? Why are these girls singled out more than au pair girls from other inimical régimes? Hon. Gentleman opposite might mention au pair girls from, say, Spain and Portugal.
I should be interested to hear why the Home Office takes this extraordinary view in these cases and whether there are, as it were, any other overall security blanket directives which govern these matters. The Joint Under-Secretary paid an appropriate tribute to the immigration officers who must deal with the Act. He described them as both compassionate and humane, and I absolutely concur. However, I have certain doubts, in view of the case I have mentioned, about the compassion and humanity of the way in which the Act is being implemented.

Mr. Orme: I, too, wish to give an example of the way in which the Act can operate at present. I have taken note of the Joint Under-Secretary's remarks about the setting up of a committee of inquiry and I would like to know whether it will operate under the jurisdiction of the Home Office and whether it will be particularly liberal in its outlook. For the time being we will have to hope for the best and see what happens.
Justice must not only be done but be seen to be done. That is, perhaps, the most important pillar on which our democracy has been built. Bearing that in mind, it must be said that in some of the recent battles with the Home Office under former Home Secretaries that

Department's views in this matter have not seemed particularly liberal. I recall the case of General Delgado, the Portuguese General who received what I can only describe as abominable treatment. I would like to know the full facts in that case.
It is often to be regretted that the Home Secretary cannot reveal the reasons why he takes a certain course. The person concerned should, I suggest, always know why a certain course is being adopted and be given an opportunity to answer any charges made against him. In many instances people do not know why the Home Office is acting against them and not even hon. Members are given the information.
I wish to raise the case of Mr. Bert Benson, a prohibited immigrant from this country at the present time. Mr. Benson has no objection to my raising this matter or mentioning his name. An American citizen, he was living and working in this country when he committed two cardinal errors. The first was that he married a young lady who was working at the Foreign Office, which was not looked upon very benignly by that Department. The second was that he made a statement, when his expulsion was ordered by the Home Secretary, to the effect that he would not give himself up until a Labour Government was returned because, he stated, he would get better treatment from a Socialist Home Secretary.
While in this country Mr. Benson took part in political activities. I am raising this case and have mentioned that fact because the most difficult cases are usually those involving people who have taken part in political activities. Passions are more usually aroused when such activities are involved. Mr. Benson took part in C.N.D. activities. He did not take part in Committee of One Hundred activities, as other aliens have done. On one occasion only he was charged with having caused an obstruction during a demonstration.
Mr. Benson was made a prohibited immigrant by the former Home Secretary and left this country. He now lives in West Germany, in Frankfurt-on-Main. He has made several applications to the present Home Secretary to be allowed to return to this country because his wife and parents-in-law live here. Mr. Benson's wife had a baby in February of this


year and, under great pressure, the Home Secretary permitted him to return to see his wife and child. He later made application to return to this country to spend Christmas with his family—to be here for a purely domestic and social reason—and said that he would be willing to give any undertaking to the Home Office if his re-entry for Christmas were permitted. That application was refused by the Home Secretary, who merely stated "I am not prepared to alter the previous decision made by the previous Home Secretary." We have had a change of Government. If there are reasons why Mr. Benson should remain a prohibited immigrant or should not be permitted to come here for a short visit we should be told them.
A number of rumours or stories, some of them quite fantastic, have circulated about Mr. Benson. They cannot be answered or denied because the Home Office will not supply its reasons for taking the course it has in this case. Somebody in this country originated the story that Mr. Benson was an agent of the C.I.A. and had been prohibited on those grounds. Mr. Benson has in writing categorically denied any association with any such organisation in any country.
When I went to Frankfurt last May to attend a meeting I met Mr. Benson and b ad a long talk with him about his deportation. I asked him many questions about his activities while in Britain and about his intentions when or if he is allowed to return here. I received en-t rely frank and satisfactory answers to all my questions. It is, therefore, incumbent on the Home Secretary to tell the House exactly why Mr. Benson is not being allowed in. Many other people are allowed entry to and exit from this country very easily—people who would seem to be much more undesirable than Mr. Bert Benson.
For taking part in a perfectly legitimate demonstration in this country—remembering that the right of assembly and demonstration is recognised to be tae privilege of all—this man was made a prohibited immigrant. Now he wishes to return to this country, or certainly to have the questions which have been asked about this case answered by the Home Secretary.
Will this committee that has been set up be able to act retrospectively? Will people be able to put their cases to it, and have an answer in relation to the charges made against them? One of the world's problems is that in many countries we find the Executive using a hard, firm hand in the name of security against individuals. I do not care where the individuals reside, they have a right to be heard, and this country should set the example.
The Home Office should unfetter itself a little. In spite of what the Under-Secretary said, his Department does not have a terribly good reputation for a liberal point of view, and the Commonwealth Immigrants Act will not help. Therefore, I hope that under the Aliens Act my right hon. and learned Friend will show some humanitarian feeling towards the problem I have mentioned and to the parallel case referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman).
I hope that aliens will be allowed the same right of appeal as that prescribed in the Commonwealth Immigrants Act. It is no use saying to people who have only a few days' notice that they can apply to the Bow Street magistrate. That is not satisfactory democratically. I therefore hope that when this committee reports we shall get some satisfaction; that some of these cases that are at the moment a blot on British democracy and the proud tradition that this country has followed for many years can be righted; and that my right hon. and learned Friend will set the lead in seeing that it is done.

Mr. Eric Lubbock: I want to support the advocacy of the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) of the case of Mr. Bert Benson. Having seen Mr. Benson, and having had discussions with him over a period of several hours, I know that the hon. Member will find it as ludicrous as I do to imagine that Mr. Benson could be a security risk. The hon. Member has said that anyone who is deported should have the right of appeal. He will be aware that under the European Convention on Establishment, to which this country adhered in 1956, an alien who has been resident in this country for more than two years has a right of appeal to the Chief Metropolitan


Magistrates, except in cases where he is to be deported for
… imperative considerations of national security.
That is the phrase used in the document.
If the reasons were as important as all that, the Home Secretary was incorrect in allowing Mr. Benson into this country for a month at the time of the birth of his child. If the man is a dangerous maniac who will undermine the State, the right hon. and learned Gentleman should not have done that at all. He should have closed his heart to Mr. Benson's appeals, and should not have allowed him to be present at the birth of his child. Of course, we do not believe this. We who have been interested in this case all the time have argued with the Home Secretary and the Under-Secretary, and we find it impossible to accept that imperative considerations of national security, or any other considerations of national security, apply in this case.
Nothing in what has been said by the Home Office has given any support at all to that allegation. I have had a number of discussions with Mr. Benson, and have asked what he thinks could be the reason. He has complained that some circumstances in his activities in this country might have been misconstrued by the Home Office. I think that all these activities were perfectly innocent, unless the Government are to say that association with an organisation like C.N.D. is an imperative threat to national security. I asked in the previous Parliament, but never had an answer: just what is meant by that phrase? I think that it is a shabby pretence that we are becoming more liberal in signing the European Convention on Establishment unless we are to say exactly what we mean.
As has been stated, Mr. Benson has applied to visit this country, not for an extended stay but merely to say with his parents-in-law over the Christmas holidays. He is prepared to give any sort of undertaking the Home Office may demand about his behaviour during the visit. I think that it is inhuman to turn down this application. Mr. Benson has already been allowed in for the birth of his child. What damage will it do to the country? Is it thought that he will go about blowing up airfields during the

Christmas holidays? Does the Home Secretary think that?
It is a ludicrous state of affairs, and I should like a much more thorough explanation than that which I received in a letter from the Home Secretary dated 19th November. I wrote pointing out that he had allowed Mr. Benson in for the birth of his child, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman replied that the Home Office felt it right to let him enter in that case because of compassionate considerations, and because of the requirement that he had to be present for the registration of the birth of his child.
5.45 p.m.
Compassionate considerations apply now. Are we to say that Mr. Benson is never again to be permitted to visit the country; never to be allowed to see his mother-in-law, and his wife's family? This attitude is quite inhuman, and cannot be defended in this House. I hope that the Home Secretary will reconsider his approach to this case, and that we shall have some sort of undertaking that he is prepared to allow Mr. Benson in to see his family.

Mr. Leslie Hale: I rise to refer to a small point that has not yet been touched on. I agreed with almost all that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) said, except for two or three words which I think got into his speech by mistake. The words were "provided they can pay for it." If I understood the Under-Secretary's statement aright, something like 147 people were refused admission because they had no money—the expression was "no means." I may have the figure slightly wrong. It is not a big figure, but that is the important point. It is not a figure that would really threaten the existence of our £1,000 million reserve in the National Insurance Fund, or the £100 million reserve in the Industrial Injuries Fund, or a sum that will prevent us from paying subsidies to United Airways. As I say, it was something like 147, but I may have the figure wrong. My hearing is not good, and I think that today some of the articulation has not been good—but one of the things that happens to people going deaf is that they always suspect others of lack of clarity.
I cannot follow the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Buck)—I do not know


precisely what an au pair girl is. I have never known what a security risk is; how it is defined, or who defined it or what it means, whether we have any secrets and, if we have, why we have any. If we have any secrets I should have thought we would have to go to Nevada Flats to find them at the moment. There are a lot of things about our political life and policy that I should like to have explained by some competent inquirer from abroad, who has been told to find out why we are continuing to test the Polaris missiles underground, although they are not ready to be launched, and we know not what they are to be used for when launched. But I cannot hope to get that information in this debate.
I was brought up to believe—or, at least, I was told that I ought to believe, and much of it I do accept—one or two propositions. The first is that to have no money is a sign of character and that to have money makes one what I might call a financial security risk. It raises a question of dubiety about how one acquired it. The poor shall inherit the earth, but not apparently:
This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England.
It is difficult for a rich man to get into the Kingdom of Heaven, but apparently comparatively simple for him to get into this country. [Laughter.] Whenever I slate obvious and ethical truths someone laughs, but is it not the case that what the Home Office is saying is that if a man arrives here with £200,000 and no character he can land at once, but if a man arrives with a high character and less than a shilling he will not be permitted to land. I pointed out in art earlier debate that if the Twelve Apostles arrived at Dover tomorrow the only one likely to qualify, unless the financial situation of the others had improved from the time when their lives were recorded, would be Judas Iscariot with his 30 pieces of silver, which he might have invested productively in the meantime so that he had considerably more.
I know that this observation is quite capable of misrepresentation, but I want the ports to be open to people who might come here and live on National Assistance and so on. Who are these people? Where do they come from and why do they come? I suspect that every

one of these cases which has been refused for lack of means is a case of personal tragedy. I cannot think that people who have no means and presumably no great skill, if one wanted to help them over a temporary difficulty, would come here unless they were driven by the impetus of some severe and tragic misfortune, unless they come to join relatives here.
I make no personal criticism of the Home Office. I think it has shown itself fairly enlightened, except when we discuss things which are related to the next Amendment. I have no personal criticism and I have had better letters from the Home Office in some developments, some helpful ones, than I had for some time. I do not want to join the chorus of criticism, but the Home Office has not been very responsive to opinions which hon. Members have expressed on this matter ever since 1945, and sometimes before.
It has always been said that this Measure was conceived of war and renewed with very little discussion after the war, that in fact the original Measure was passed, it was never debated at all and has never been considered by this House, although this House has constantly manifested a desire that it should be. I should have thought the arguments for a Select Committee on this matter are overwhelming. I have no doubt that my right hon. and learned Friend would select men of the highest repute and character, but on a political committee I like to know something about people's political views. The theory is that a man with no views on politics is one of independent mind, but I think that one with no political views has no mind at all, unless he is a super-expert examining and acquiring knowledge in a limited sphere and shown to concentrate his mind on the microcosms of his own particular science.
What happens to these people? Many of them may have come a long way. Are they stowed away in the under decks of some boat and deported? What happens to each and every one of these individual tragedies? I can see the argument and I can see the difficulty. It is no use now talking in this curious world of:
Bring me your starved, your poor, your teeming millions waiting to breathe free.
There is a great tradition which will never be repeated of victims of religious


persecution, the Huguenots and people who constitute most of the population of the United States, the teeming millions who fled from poverty, but in a world where there are not teeming millions fleeing from poverty—except Commonwealth immigrants, very largely—is there not some means whereby at least we could consider the applicant if his only fault is lack of means?
Of course, my right hon. and learned Friend may say that person has not a work permit and that he has not satisfied the Home Office, but if a man comes in distress and suffering from poverty, what is the method of considering his case? What is the method of giving a decision, the locus poenitentiae used by the officers examining the case? Who has time to think of them and look at the circumstances? Who has time to say that here is a fit candidate for the hospitality of a country which at one time used to display a generous heart to the world and which is even now producing an economic plan which suggests that we shall be short in the working population by 200,000 in four years' time and may have to offer inducements to get workers to keep this country going?

Mr. Will Griffiths: I do not intend to keep the Committee for long, because I know that many of my hon. Friends want to get on to the other part of the business. I have been here throughout the debate and have listened to every word that has been said. In particular, I heard what was said by the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) about the case of Mr. Benson. I want to say something, not entirely about that case, because I do not know about it as they do, but about what has been happening over this procedure.
When I have taken part in these debates I have found that in a way they never change. It is like a stock play in which the characters represent the Home Office; there may be different actors playing their rôles, but every year they say the same sort of thing. The Home Office will have heard repeated complaints about the traditional failure to give people reasons for deportation. I
am very conscious of the difficulty which the Home Office faces, and I hope to recommend some remedial action and to suggest how the Home Office could tackle this difficult problem, but I point out that the Home Office must have thought about this and must know where this situation leads them.
I have referred to what the hon. Member for Orpington said about Mr. Benson. I draw particular attention to what he said because we do not know the reasons why Mr. Benson was deported. The Home Office has its reasons but says that it cannot give the reasons, so the field is wide open to speculation. So the hon. Member for Orpington says that it is because of Mr. Benson's C.N.D. activities and that it is an absurdity that this should be held against him. If that is true, I agree that it is an absurdity, but if it is true what is the position of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary who is a lifelong pacifist? How does he feel about it? He is in a difficulty arising from this kind of procedure.

Mr. George Thomas: My hon. Friend is accurate in his description of me. I should say that the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) was merely speculating on what were the security reasons and, of course, it is impossible for me to say, but certainly they were not those of being a pacifist.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Griffiths: I fully understand the difficulty. That is exactly what I am saying to the Committee. These difficulties arise out of the existing procedure. I will give the Committee another example. It is somewhat out of date, but it is relevant to the argument. I can well remember that as long ago as when the Deputy Leader of the Opposition was Minister of Supply a case occurred in which, on the direct intervention of the Government, a man was dismissed from his job on security grounds. I know this is not deportation, but it is relevant to this argument about the Home Office refusing to give information.
There was a great deal of publicity about this case at the time. The man who was sacked had had the unwisdom to marry a lady who was a former member of the Communist Party. He himself was a solicitor looking at defence contracts in a very high position in one of


the big industrial complexes in this country. When the Minister was challenged in the House of Commons on whether it was a fact that this gentleman had been moved because he had married a lady who was a former member of the Communist Party, the Minister, the right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling), told the House of Commons, "Yes, but there are other things against him". This is the worst smear of all, because then the field is wide open to speculation.
This is why I say that, if my right hon. and learned Friend and his colleagues at the Home Office refuse to give reasons in the case of a man like Benson or in any cases of this kind, they do a disservice to the alien against which he cannot defend himself anywhere, they leave it wide open to the most malicious speculation as to what is against the alien, and they damage their own political and personal reputation, as well as the reputation of the party to which they belong.
I fully understand the special difficulties in security cases, because the Home Office is trying to anticipate the State's being injured and not deal with it after the event, as is done with a burglar or with a bigamist. When such a person is caught, there is a prescribed rule of law. The person has his defence. Witnesses have to be heard in open court.
We know that there is a special difficulty here, but I suggest to my right hon. and learned Friend and his colleagues that they might look at the possibility of prescribing what are sensitive posts and sensitive courses of study for students in this country. They should warn aliens, and in particular students coming to this country, because I have had a lot to do with this kind of case, where they are exposing themselves to alleged security risks. if the security officers believe that such persons are a danger—I think that many of these cases are absolutely absurd—at the very least such persons should be told what it is that is held against them.
The present situation amounts to this. Many people say that there is the defence of Ministerial responsibility, that a Minister of the Crown looks into all these allegations. That is absolute nonsense. I do not say that they do not do it. I ask hon. Members to consider a case I had which I think is relevant. I have

in mind a Chinese student at Manchester University who was deported because he was a security risk. I understand that he is now happily working in Sweden, making a much appreciated and skilful contribution to their economic growth. He had to leave this country on security grounds.
I went to see the Minister. This was before my hon. Friends were in office. The Minister concerned could not tell me anything, because the man was a security risk. Yet I remember the Minister at the Home Office pointing out to me—this demonstrates our peculiarly absurd British methods—"At least we allowed him to stay and complete his degree course". If these people are security risks, they should go at once. It makes one concerned about the whole basis of the operation of this law when that kind of answer is given.
I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend and his colleagues will have heard today, as they have heard before—indeed, I am not sure that they did not contribute to this when they were in opposition—repeated pleas that they should not exercise the arbitrary powers that they possess and remove people without giving them any reasons.
I am convinced that if my right hon. and learned Friend and his colleagues apply their minds to this in the very difficult field of security procedure it will be possible to arrive at a solution which, while protecting the interests of the State, will give a greater degree of liberty to the individual. If I have the opportunity, I hope, together with some of my hon. Friends who are similarly interested, to persuade the Ministers at the Home Office of how this can be done, by a method which will let them out of the nasty situation they are in and which will reduce to an absolute minimum the possibility of these miscarriages of justice occurring in the future.

Sir F. Soskice: This debate has been on a subject about which I suppose the House of Commons is as sensitive as it is upon any other subject, namely, the subject of civil liberties. It would be utterly alien to the tradition of the House of Commons to treat a debate of this sort as otherwise than one of first class importance. As the Minister having


some sort of responsibility in this connection, obviously I have listened with the very greatest care to the criticisms which have been directed at my administration and that of my predecessors by various hon. Members who have spoken.
I ask the Committee to get this matter in perspective. I hope that hon. Members do not think it fair to represent the Home Office and the tradition of successive Home Office Ministers as some kind of ogreish monster. I remind hon. Members, in order to get the matter into perspective, of some figures which my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary gave. I do not intend to repeat them in detail. To give two figures which he mentioned, last year from October, 1964 to the end of September, 1965, no fewer than 2,700,000 aliens entered the United Kingdom. There were only 4,154 refusals of leave to land—in other words, a percentage of 0·15.
With great deference to the Committee, a Department which succeeds—I hope that it succeeds—in discharging its responsibility at any rate to watch those who come to these shores, to ensure that undesirable persons are not admitted, or are not admitted in too great numbers, and to ensure that proper regard is had for security considerations, cannot be a Department which is impervious to considerations of humanity and to the duty which everybody of conscience owes to the broad civilised concept of civil liberty and civil dignity if it admits that vast host of persons—2,700,000—and excludes only about 4,000.
I most earnestly put it to the Committee that it would be right, in fairness to my Department and, I hope, to my administration and to my predecessors' administration, not to approach the matter as if our proceedings were proceedings which gave rise to a train of unhappy cases in which cruelty was exhibited in wanton decisions given without consideration and without careful analysis and sifting of the facts. That is quite wide of the mark. It just is not the case.
No doubt in this country, with its tradition of hospitality and liberty, it would be, if we were able to manage it, desirable to throw the doors open as wide as possible. But I think one must accept—I believe that all my hon. Friends and hon. Gentlemen opposite who have

spoken during the debate have accepted—that in the case of an island of our sort, with its territorial limits, frankly it is not practicable to apply a principle of that sort. Therefore, one has to have some immigration control and some control of persons who are not citizens of this country while they are here.
Hon. Members have mentioned only three cases—Mr. Benson, Colonel Delgado and Miss Balogh. This is not the appropriate place for me to add to what I have already said on those cases—on the first two, publicly in this House. It really is quite unrealistic to think that decisions are arbitrary and not open to challenge. I can be challenged, and ought to be challenged, day in and day out by hon. Members from their places in this House.

Dr. M. S. Miller: Before he leaves this point, will my right hon. and learned Friend say how many of the 2,700,000 people he mentioned are holidaymakers and tourists coming to this country and how many of them are persons who have applied for entry into this country either to work or to stay here?

Sir F. Soskice: To give the complete breakdown would take time, but I accept at once that a very large number are holidaymakers and visitors—the great preponderance. But they need just as careful examination as anybody else. One cannot say that they are holidaymakers and so one can forbear from making any inquiry into their cases. The responsibility which my Department owes to the public is to examine and consider all entrants. No doubt a different and perhaps more thorough type of examination is devoted to some than to others. As to au pair girls from Iron Curtain countries, I say at once that I would not pretend that persons who come from behind the Iron Curtain are treated on exactly the same footing as others. A certain care has to be exercised for security reasons, which I do not think I need dilate upon in this debate. One has to use—I try to use—a sensible discretion in assessing the degree of care and the thoroughness of examination which is appropriate in the case of the various classes of entrant. I have figures here, but it would take time to read them out. I will give them to my


hon. Friend if he wants them. So I start from that general proposition.
What have been the points of substance raised in the debate? I accept at once that there have been a number of points of substance. My hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Sydney Silverman), whose sincerity and, I would add, Parliamentary dexterity are well known in this House, raised the general point that it is utterly undesirable that the fate or destiny of an individual, particularly an alien who is not naturalised, should rest in the arbitrary discretion of a single person, the Home Secretary of the time. It is a little of a misdescription to say that. The Home Secretary is rightly subjected to every sort of pressure where it is suspected or thought that he has committed an injustice or has failed to take into account something which ought to have been taken into account in favour of the person applying for naturalisation. I accept that it is open to question as to whether his ipse dixit should represent the final decision in the matter. I shall come in a moment in that context to the Committee that we thought it right to set up.
There is a broad question of principle which I accept. In the debate last year these matters were ventilated, and I accepted then that there was a case for some kind of appeal if it was workable. I pointed out then the practical difficulties of an appeal in the case, for example, of refusals to land and in the case of requirements to leave, but particularly in the case of refusals to land. But there is a point for consideration, and that is one of the reasons why the Government have announced the setting up of the Committee. So I accept it when it is said that there should be—

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Paget: I feel that, speaking for myself, certainly, it is not that we are concerned that it is the discretion of one man. We are concerned that it is the discretion of one man who will not give reasons. It is awfully difficult to put pressure on somebody who will not give reasons.

Sir F. Soskice: I accept the force of that criticism. I will try to answer it. This House, as a matter of deliberate policy, in Section 26 of the British

Nationality Act, 1948, in terms relieved the holder from time to time of my office from the requirement to give reasons for decisions which were reposed in his discretion. That was a broad matter of policy. The question is whether it is right or wrong. One may take two views about it. One may say that one should always give reasons, or one may take the opposite view and say that one should never give reasons.
It is the worst of both worlds if it is left to the Home Secretary's discretion sometimes to give reasons and sometimes not. The result of his sometimes giving reasons is that the individual who cannot get a reason, in whose case there may be a very adequate ground for withholding the reason, naturally goes away with the feeling that there is some stigma upon him, some mystery attached to him, which he cannot discover and which seems thereafter to be a blot on his character, and this creates doubt in his mind. That being the situation, the Government in 1948—it was in the time of the Labour Government—deliberately adopted the view that it was better to say that one need never give reasons.

Mr. Lubbock: in the case of the alien who exercises his right of appeal to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, reasons have to be given. It is only when the motive for deportation is imperative for reasons of national security that reasons are not given. Therefore, such a person has the worst of both possible worlds if reasons are given in the cases presented to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and not in the cases which are not so presented.

Sir F. Soskice: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman would argue in this House that if the ground is a security one the reasons should be given in a case of that sort. If he says that, I must say that really it would be quite impossible to administer any security system. One could not do it. If it had to be said in the case of an individual against whom it was suspected, rightly or wrongly, that there were security objections "We suspect you of that", in which case the name of the informant and so on would have to be given, we should have to pack up any security system and say that there was not to be one.

Mr. Orme: Surely my right hon. and learned Friend is here defending the Security Service, which at times gives only half-reasons, and it should be challenged to prove that a man is guilty and not just suspect that he is guilty. This is what many of us worry about.

Sir F. Soskice: Frankly, I do not accept that it should prove it. It has to take an executive decision. If the Minister who is responsible for the security department is not adequate to the performance of his duties, this House has its ordinary remedy by making it perfectly clear that it has no confidence in the Minister. That is our constitutional position.

Mr. Reginald Freeson: Mr. Reginald Freeson (Willesden, East) rose—

Sir F. Soskice: I cannot give way again. I must go on.
So I start from the position that if one has a security system and it is accepted that in certain circumstances with certain activities a risk may be engendered to the security of the country, it is essential that a certain degree of secrecy should be observed with regard to it.
Those are the views which I put to the Committee. Hon. Members may or may not agree with them. Recognising that many hon. Members do not agree with them, the Government have decided that the time has come when we ought to set up this Committee. Two points arise. One is whether the alien legislation should depend on annual renewal, as I have said and all my predecessors for years have accepted. There is something to be said for it because it provides annual reconsideration, but, nevertheless, I accent on balance, as all my predecessors have constantly accepted, that it is anomalous that legislation of this degree of importance should rest upon Section 1 of an Act passed in 1919, after the end of the First World War.
The question then arises whether we are, as a purely mechanical process. simply to write out in the terms of a single Statute Section 1 of the 1919 Act and the various Orders which have subsequently been made under it and which now in combination contain the existing aliens legislation, or whether we should review those Orders and change their form where necessary, bring them up to

date and see where the shoe pinches and where there is danger of injustice.
Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the Committee will, I think, say unhesitatingly that it is not the slightest use just writing it out in a single Act. One has to review it and reconsider it. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), who has taken such a prominent part in these discussions, would, I know, say at once that he does not want just the mechanical process of writing out and that he wants reviews. Because we recognise that, in the terms of reference, which I hope hon. Members will regard as suitable—I know that there will be criticisms—we announce that we propose to set up a Committee to do what I believe to be necessary to enable us to put these provisions in permanent form.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton in particular criticised the terms, but first he criticised the nature of the Committee and argued that it should have been a Select Committee, and I know that for long that has been his view. It is a question of balance. We carefully considered my hon. and learned Friend's view, but we thought on balance that it would be better to have an independent body to examine what is a subject involving very careful and minute investigation. We may have been right or wrong about that, but it was a question of a balanced judgment. I still feel that on balance we were right, although I see the force of my hon. and learned Friend's case.
The question then arises whether the terms of reference are appropriate. I hope that when hon. Members examine them, they will agree that they are. Let me take the example mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne. He said that in the United States an alien who was refused leave to land had the right to appeal to a judicial body to determine whether he should be allowed to land. In other words, what is done in the United States is that there is an executive act which refuses the alien leave to land and then, if the alien disagrees with that act, he has a right of appeal. It is precisely that which the Committee which we are setting up, as I read its terms of reference—and it will be for the Committee to interpret them and not for me
to put a gloss on them—will have the right, arid I would have thought the duty, to investigate. The Committee will be able to consider whether there should be a right of appeal and, if so, what right of appeal and other remedies for aliens and Commonwealth citizens who are refused permission to land.
The alien who lands in the United States and who meets that executive decision then has a right of appeal. The Committee will no doubt direct its mind to whether we should have some system of that sort in this country. I think that my hon. and learned Friend would accept at once that it is not arguable to start the proceedings by judicial inquiry. My hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne at one time was rather inclined to think that that would be appropriate, but that was not the view of my hon. and learned Friend. After all, 2,700,000 aliens ask leave to land and a certain percentage is refused. We have to decide as a mater of inevitable need by way of executive decision whether in the first place they are to be allowed leave to land. Where there is disagreement with the decision, we then have to investigate whether such aliens should have the right, by way of appeal, to challenge the decision.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: I quite accept that. In a great many cases the original executive decision is accepted and the question arises only when it is not accepted. What we are saying is that when the executive act has been challenged, the issue of whether it should remain valid should be a judicial decision reached in a judicial way.

Sir F. Soskice: I have been pointing out that it is precisely that question which its terms of reference will enable the Committee to investigate. Therefore, I would have thought that the terms of reference were perfectly appropriate to discharge just that very end. It would not be for the chairman and the Committee to decide whether the terms of reference enabled them to ask in the first place whether when an alien lands he should go before a tribunal without an executive act. I do not think that anybody could possibly argue that such a proceeding was remotely practicable. I hope that these terms of reference are exactly apposite and appropriate.

Mr. Paget: The comparison with America breaks down. In America everybody has a prima facie right to enter. That is the idea of the melting pot. That right is limited by law, the quota law and others. The immigration officer operates a known law and tells the alien that he cannot enter for a certain reason, and the alien can then appeal. Our difficulty is that, on the contrary, nobody has the right to enter this country and the reason for an alien's exclusion, the general rules, do not give anything on which to judge. I am saying that the terms of reference of the committee are all wrong because we must decide what are the rules, as in America, for excluding people and then set up a tribunal to judge. As it is, there will be no rules on which a tribunal can judge.

Sir F. Soskice: When 2,700,000 aliens are being allowed to land and 1,400 are being refused, it makes very little difference in practice whether there is a prima facie right to land or not. The alien has the very strong hope that he will land. Prima facie right or not, the procedure is that refusal of leave to land is a decision which is never taken in the first place without very careful inquiry into the individual case. The person who is refused leave to land is always allowed to get in touch with friends or relatives by telephone and they are given the opportunity to make representations on his behalf. No alien is sent away by the authority of the immigration officer alone. He has to consult his superior. Where there is a case of difficulty, it goes to London and to Ministers for decision. Whether there is a prima facie right to land or not, with all those safeguards and with the numbers in fact allowed to land, that is a distinction without a difference.
That is how the inquiry will work at the admission side. My hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne then referred to the case of a person who had applied for and had not yet got naturalisation and was, therefore, an alien and subject to our arbitrary power to expel him. My hon. Friend did not invite me to deal with the facts and hon. Members will understand that, while I am perfectly prepared to do so, I would be in danger of infringing your Ruling, Sir Herbert, if I set about it, and I will not


do so. However, I hope that the Committee will recognise that there are two sides to every story and that this is one of those stories.
6.30 p.m.
Take the case instanced by my hon. Friend, that the terms of reference to this Committee were so narrowly drawn that they could not consider that sort of case. His argument was, "Here is a man who, after years, is subject to your arbitrary power to tell him to go". But the terms of reference invite the Committee to consider whether a person who is required to leave, which would include that person, is to have a right of appeal or any other rights with regard to it. Therefore, I ask him to consider this seriously. The terms of reference are so drawn as precisely to cover the sort of case which he instanced as an example of the undesirability of there being an arbitrary power vested in the Home Secretary to require persons who are aliens to leave. Having listened most carefully to his arguments, and having had some part in drafting these terms of reference, I feel that they cover the objections which have been uttered here. In substance, the point made is that considerations of humanity, justice and human dignity require that even although a Minister is subject to criticism in this House there should be a further judicial inquiry in the case of an executive act which is adverse to the individual.
The Committee can inquire about that, but there are two views on this. There are practical difficulties about it, but it may be that the Committee will think that those difficulties ought to be overcome. Certainly it is within its terms of reference, and I would hope that my hon. Friends would feel, as my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) has very generously said, that at any rate in this regard the Government have gone far to meet the perfectly legitimate and proper criticisms that have been voiced for years in the course of these debates. We must go into it and see where we stand and then we can consider how we may change the legislation properly. In those circumstances, I hope that the Committee will agree that, having thoroughly discussed this Amendment, we should at least be given an annual renewal, for one year,

of the Aliens' Act, 1919, Section 1. We could not get on without some control, even if the existing control is one which ought to be changed as a result of an inquiry by the Committee. I therefore hope that the Committee will not accept this Amendment.

Mr. Paget: I would like to ask the Home Secretary to deal with one or two more points before we leave this matter. What I am primarily concerned with at this point are the terms of reference of this Committee. My right hon. Friend says that considering the enormous number of people we admit and the few who have been refused admission, it does not really matter whether there is a basic right to come in or no basic right to come in. In that case why are we talking about a tribunal? If one is going to have a tribunal, then it must have some law or rules on which to judge. The American tribunal has a perfectly good set of rules on which to judge the law permitting the exclusion of an alien. The tribunal decides whether the Executive is inside the rules or outside of them in excluding that alien. That is a justiciable question. If, on the other hand, the alien has no right to enter anyway and there are no rules, it seems that there is no justiciable question for that tribunal to consider. I would ask that the terms of reference of the inquiry should be extended to see whether it could recommend, as in America, laying down the general rules under which aliens may be excluded.
If these general rules are then laid down, the appeals Committee set up after the Executive act could decide whether the Executive acted within the rules. If there are no rules there is nothing for the Committee to decide. To deal with the question raised when the alien is here, my right hon. and learned Friend says that what is conceived is the placing of the law which we renew annually on to a permanent basis. That law covers the control of aliens while they are here. Would it be within the terms of reference of this Committee to consider and advise on what rules are necessary, if any, to control movement of aliens while they are in this country, and will it be within the terms of the Charter of Human Rights to lay down and reconsider the 1948 Act with regard to naturalisation? As my right hon. and learned Friend


says at that time, that Act did not require him to give reasons. It is none the less part of what happens to aliens when they are here, and I should have thought this was a perfect opportunity to consider that. After all, since the 1948 Act we have adhered to the Charter of Human Rights. There is something to be said for making oar law comply with it.
There is another question with regard to expulsion orders. If an alien has no right to be here there are no grounds for removing him. Unless one has some grounds, it is a little difficult to see what is the justiciable question to decide whether the Executive is or is not acting within its rights. Will my right hon. and learned Friend extend the terms of reference to consider not merely whether one sets up a tribunal but whether that tribunal has any rules upon which it can adjudicate?

Sir F. Soskice: With the leave of the Committee, I will speak again. If my hon. and learned Friend is saying that aliens should have a right to land here, I can answer him by pointing out that that can only be a matter of broad Government policy. I do not see how on earth one can expect an independent tribunal investigating questions of appeal to investigate broad issues of policy of that sort. It is certainly for the chairman to interpret his own terms of reference, but I would think it would be unlikely for him to take it upon himself, within the terms of reference, to decide broad issues of Government policy. This must be for the Government and not for a committee. Whether aliens, and in what circumstances, are to have a right to land in this country cannot be a matter for the Committee. It must be a matter of Government responsibility. Therefore, I would answer my hon. and learned Friend by saying that my view is that the answer to his question should be "Certainly not".

Mr. Thorneycroft: The purpose of my Amendment was to enable us to have a debate on a subject which is of interest and importance. I thought it was right that we should have this debate. I must say that I lean a little nearer to the right hon. and learned Gentleman's view than some of his hon. Friends. [HON. MEMBERS: "How do you know?"] My own view is that a very substantial

measure of executive power will, in any event, have to be retained by the Home Office in this matter. But these matters are referred to the Committee, and since we have had a full discussion on it and I know that some hon. Members on both sides of the Committee wish to move on to a wider discussion of the question of Commonwealth immigration, I would beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

The Temporary Chairman: Before I call the next Amendment dealing with the Commonwealth Immigration Act, it should be noted that only those provisions which concern control of immigration are continued and, therefore, are debatable. The provisions relating to deportation are permanent. They do not expire, and, therefore, cannot be discussed under the next Amendment.

Mr. Freeson: On a point of order. It may be within your knowledge, Sir Herbert, that within recent weeks both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the House have indicated to the House that it was intended that there should be a general debate on the question of Commonwealth immigration, including the proposals covered by the recent White Paper. May we have your Ruling whether we shall be allowed to have such a broad debate?

The Temporary Chairman: The debate is on the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill and on the Amendments which appear on the Paper. If assurances have been given by the Prime Minister or by the Leader of the House that there would be a full debate on various matters, that is not a matter for the Chair. It is the duty of the Chair to carry out the rules in the best manner possible.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: I accept, as you say, Sir Herbert, that it is for the Chair and not for the Leader of the House to decide what is in order for the Committee to discuss. In deciding, however, whether an Act should be continued for another year, are we not entitled to consider what the Government have said will be their policy in administering the powers under that Act? If they administer them in one way, we might be prepared to let them have it; if they administer them in another way,


we may have doubts whether they should have it. I submit, therefore, Sir Herbert, that to discuss this question would be entirely within the ambit of discussion on the Amendment.

The Temporary Chairman: I am grateful to the hon. Member for raising that matter. There is no doubt that certain of the matters which are referred to in the White Paper, Cmnd. 2739, would be entirely within the area of discussion. I hope that the hon. Member will equally accept that other matters which appear in that White Paper would be outside the scope of discussion of this matter.

Mr. Michael Foot: Further to the point of order. Is it not the case, Sir Herbert, that the Commonwealth Immigrants Act, 1962, was itself an Act for making temporary provisions? Its Preamble, which governs the whole of the Act, refers to its being temporary. It is that Act, I understand, which is to be continued by the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. Therefore, I should have understood any matter covered by the original Act to be in order in this debate. On a strict question of order, irrespective of any undertaking which may have been given by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, I suggest that anything in that Act, which itself is a temporary Measure, should be debatable in the debate today.

The Temporary Chairman: I think that I can help the hon. Member. If he refers to the Schedule of the Bill, he will see that what is continued in force is Part I and Scchedule 1 of the Commonwealth Immigrants Act, 1962. Those are the parts of the Act which are being continued. Perhaps we can see how we get on.

Mr. David Weitzman: Further to the point of order. I understand, Sir Herbert, that Schedule 1 of the 1962 Act is one of the matters which can be discussed. Paragraph 4 of that Schedule is headed
Detention of immigrants pending further examination and removal.
I respectfully suggest, therefore, that deportation is proper to be discussed under that Schedule.

The Temporary Chairman: The hon. and learned Member is, I think, in error.

It would be a good idea to let the debate proceed. If hon. Members endeavour to assist the Chair in giving the proper freedom of debate, I shall be obliged.

Mr. Thorneycroft: I beg to move, in page 2, to leave out lines 15 and 16.
After that interchange, I feel that a certain responsibility rests upon me to start the debate wide enough to give at least proper recognition of the undertaking that was given to us by the Leader of the House, but, at the same time, perhaps sufficiently narrow not to incur the reproval of the Chair.
6.45 p.m.
I assure the Committee that my purpose in setting down the Amendment was to secure a wide debate, because I felt that it was desired not by one side of the Committee but by both sides that we should consider fully a difficult and important matter covering entry, the effect of that entry and the controls necessary to secure that entry, and to discuss it, as we have managed to discuss it before, with restraint and moderation but with the fullness which is necessary to a subject of this character.
The background to any discussion of Part I of the 1962 Act must be the policy which the Government adopt in administering Part I. Therefore, the first point to which one must necessarily turn is the White Paper in which the Government set out their policy as recently as August of this year. I must be frank and say that hon. Friends of right hon. and hon. Members on the Front Bench opposite regarded that policy with scorn. On 26th October they put down a Motion in the most scathing terms in which they criticised both the ceiling which the Government intended to impose under the Act and the reforms in control which they forecast as their intention to introduce, and they condemned both.
I must equally say in fairness to the Home Secretary that, although the policy which he has forecast for the administration of the Act falls far short of what we on this side want on the subject both of control and of dealing with the effects of that control on what is sometimes called integration, but which is better called the fitting in of those who are allowed to enter under the Act, we on this side


would, perhaps, be less scathing in our attack than would the Home Secretary's own supporters.
The reason why we would at least give some support to the right hon. and learned Gentleman is that over the months and years he has moved a little closer to the position of the Conservative Party.

Mr. Freeson: Hear, hear.

Mr. Thorneycroft: I have some agreement on the benches opposite. The Home Secretary has moved closer to the position of the Conservative Party, that is to say, the Government Front Bench have today accepted that at least a reduction in the number of immigrants allowed in under Part I of the Act must be secured. Irrespective of whether they have done it in sufficiently precise terms, the Government have set that out. They have also made it plain that under the Act permission will no longer be granted, in effect, to the unskilled worker.
Virtually, the entry with which we are concerned under these provisions is the entry of either men and women who have a job to which to go, and who have been carefully selected for this purpose or of skilled workers. Of course, this alters very substantially our whole approach. The question now is not why should we keep them out but by what conceivable justification do we allow them in? Think of the demands for, say, doctors in some of the areas from which doctors are drawn. Those of us on both sides of the Committee who move in High Commission circles know the criticism which we are under for taking more people with such skills. When I read the other day that the Minister of Overseas Development was paying special allowances to persuade British doctors to go to these overseas territories while doctors in such territories were being asked to come here, I asked myself how much sense there was in all this.
We are not taking merely unskilled men, the holders of C vouchers. We are taking men who would be of the greatest value in the countries from which they are drawn. I therefore say that under this Act, and in particular Part I, the question which we have to ask ourselves is not what is the justification for keeping them out but what is the justification for continuing to bring them in.
The statement of Government policy lends no support whatever to the view that it would be "mad to keep immigrants out". I do not know whether the First Secretary of State ever used that phrase or not. I should warn my hon. Friends that he claims that when he used it he was talking at a local government conference about immigrants from Hampshire into Sussex. Apparently, he was terribly misrepresented by members of the national Press, all of whom thought that he meant immigrants coming into this country from abroad. This shows into what dangerous postures one can be led by using ill-advised phrases on a public platform.
All that is swept aside. The case is no longer argued by the Government that Part I of the Act should be used for some economic purpose in this country. The numbers of immigrant workers now referred to are certainly not large enough to make an impotant impact on the main economic future of the United Kingdom. Therefore, all those arguments are abandoned.
The importance of the White Paper was stressed by the Prime Minister. There is no doubt that a great deal of thought and consideration went into it before it was laid before the House. On 4th November, the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) asked the Prime Minister
whether, pending further research and consultation on the problem of immigration into the United Kingdom, he will now withdraw the latest White Paper on the subject.
The Prime Minister answered:
No, Sir",
and went on to say in answer to a supplementary question:
I cannot believe that there is any subject in recent times which has had more research, more discussion and more careful consideration than this one. The White Paper was put forward as a result of that. I should think that the House is most likely to be debating the matter in the near future."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th November, 1965; Vol. 718, c. 1231.]
We are debating it—with some difficulty, let me say, but we are debating it.
I suppose that a very unsophisticated Member, when he heard the Prime Minister say "No, Sir", might have believed that he meant "No, Sir". But we who know the Prime Minister realise


that he is much deeper than that. Therefore, we were not surprised when, five days later, we found him in the Queen's Speech effectively withdrawing all the legislative proposals in the White Paper. It was no surprise to us. It was just another typical bit of double-talk. I must say frankly to the Home Secretary—I do not blame him for this—that it is not treating the Committee with proper respect not to be franker with it in matters of this character.
Let me start with the controls because they are central to this part of the Act. The policy by which they are to be carried out is in paragraphs 23, 24 and 25 of the White Paper. In effect, what is said there is this. First, for these controls under this part of the Act to work properly, it is necessary to be able to impose conditions upon people who enter with these vouchers. Secondly, it is necessary to have a general power to refer these cases to the police. Thirdly, if this part of the Act is to work properly, power to repatriate should be taken by the Home Secretary. I will not argue the general question of repatriation except in the narrow sense in which it has been argued by the Home Secretary and by the Government as necessary to the implementation of this part of the Act.
Those paragraphs are extremely important and I should like to read the last of them, paragraph 25:
At present a Commonwealth citizen may be deported"—
I am not arguing the general question of deportation—
only if a court has made a recommendation to that effect on convicting him of a crime punishable by imprisonment. The Government regard it as important that there should be a speedy and effective power to repatriate immigrants who in one way or another, e.g. by obtaining entry"—
that is, entry under this part of the Act—
by misrepresentation or by flouting the conditions on which they were admitted, evade the stricter control over immigration that is now envisaged. Without it"—
and these are the important words—
the effectiveness of the control would be greatly weakened.
Those are very important words indeed.

The Deputy Chairman (Mr. Roderic Bowen): Order. Apparently, the right hon. Gentleman is now going on to dis-

cuss matters which inevitably will have to be the subject of legislation. He is entitled to make passing reference to them, but he is not entitled to develop the matter at any length.

Mr. Thorneycroft: I appreciate that, Mr. Bowen. That is why I am making passing reference to the matter. The point is simply this. The Government have said that their administration of Part I of the Act, screwed down to a much narrower intake of immigrants, would be gravely weakened unless they did something on the lines of paragraph 25. This is, and surely must be, relevant to a discussion of the Act which we are seeking to renew. That is the only point—the narrow but vitally important point—that I wish to make. The question that I want to ask is: does the Home Secretary today accept that, without it, the effectiveness of the control would be greatly weakened? I want an answer to that question.
That brings me to the figures of entry—entry, let me hasten to add, permitted under the Act—which are set out in the first part of the White Paper. The figures are that in 1963 there were 57,000 coloured immigrants. I am drawing the distinction between the coloured and the white because it is drawn in the Government's White Paper, and I will come to the whites in a moment.

Dr. David Kerr: What colour were they?

7.0 p.m.

Mr. Thorneycroft: The Home Secretary draws a distinction between immigrants broadly from Canada, New Zealand and Australia on the one hand, and the broadly coloured immigrants on the other hand. The hon. Gentleman probably has a copy of the White Paper. I am not discussing the subject in an aggressive way, but factually so that we can debate it with restraint and moderation.

Dr. Kerr: I do not make any excuse for being aggressive about it. My recollection is that the White Paper talks about immigrants from the old Commonwealth and the new Commonwealth. There is no mention of the word "coloured".

Mr. Thorneycroft: If the hon. Gentleman prefers not to use the word, he need


not use it. If he prefers, I will use the expression "from the new Commonwealth". I do not mind a bit. But in discussing the matter, if we are going to be honest with ourselves, the question of colour does come in and it is better not to put it under the carpet. We should be quite open about it. There is no other reason why the Home Secretary has drawn the distinction between the two.
If I may give them, the figures are these. For the new Commonwealth, coloured or whatever one prefers to call them, in 1963 the entry was 57,000, in 1964 the figure was 75,000, and in the first six months of 1965, 33,000 have come in. Those are A voucher holders and their dependants. That class of immigration is running at a pace which will increase by about ½ million over the next 10 years in addition to the 800,000 that exist at the moment, and it is additional to any natural increase resulting from births which will take place during that period in the ordinary course of events.
Those are formidable figures on any account, and there are two questions which the Committee ought to ask itself. The first is, is there evasion which is swelling the figures? The other question which has to be faced quite frankly, because it is debated outside and it is much better that it should be debated in the Committee, is, can we accept immigration on that scale over that period?

Mr. Freeson: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves that point, could he tell us whether he is talking about immigration as a whole and whether the country can accept it, or is he talking about one class of immigrant from one part of the world?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I have just been talking about immigration from the new Commonwealth, as the hon. Member for Wandsworth, Central (Dr. David Kerr) prefers to call it. I am going to deal with both classes, but I want to deal with them separately, because I beg the Committee to face the facts of evasion, first of all, by coloured immigrants and, secondly, by white immigrants. But let me develop my argument, because the hon. Member for Willesden, East (Mr. Freeson) can develop his own in a few minutes.
Has there been a measure of evasion which has swelled those numbers? The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary came to the House on 4th February and made a rather grave statement about evasion. What he did was to take the net addition of coloured immigrants over two years. He then took the number who had been permitted to come in either by voucher or as dependants of voucher holders, and he subtracted the one from the other. I may say that the phrase "coloured immigration" has been used by him, and it has been used in the other place. It is a shorter way of putting it. The right hon. Gentleman pointed out that in the case of coloured immigration, the discrepancy was 10,000. The fact is that if one examines the figures, the discrepancy in 1963 was only 900, in 1964 it was 9,000 and in the first six months of this year the discrepancy is already 7,000. The discrepancy in the case of whites was 5,000 in 1963, 10,000 in 1964 and is about 14,000 at the present time.
The Committee ought to ponder those figures both in the case of the new and of the old Commonwealth. If the discrepancy or error is expressed as a percentage of the number allowed in, in the case of the coloureds the error or evasion was 2 per cent. in 1963, 18 per cent. in 1964 and is running at 25 per cent. today. In the case of the whites the error was 150 per cent. in 1963, 300 per cent in 1964 and is running at 1,000 per cent. in the present year.
I put forward those figures both for the coloured and the white because there are lessons to be drawn from them. We may say that the Act is not discriminatory. I do not want to argue the Irish point, but there is some evidence that under the weak, unreformed controls which the Home Office has at the moment the law is being administered in some sense upon a discriminatory basis.
The point that I would like to put to the Committee is, can we really pass this Measure for further reform without considering very carefully the figures that I have put forward, which tend to show that the Act is beginning to break down? What I would say to the Home Secretary is that the figures that I have given powerfully reinforce what he has said in his White Paper. Without his new proposals, the effectiveness of the control will


be greatly weakened. The more one screws down the legitimate entries, the more the evasions will grow and the more such discrepancies will arise.
In those circumstances, I do not think that the Home Secretary can do other than honour the pledges that he has given in the White Paper. I believe that it is vitally urgent. It is playing with public opinion on an explosive matter to leave the White Paper while he does some long-term study of what would be the ideal arrangement for dealing with either aliens or Commonwealth immigrants and whether there should be rights of appeal and the rest of it.
As the Prime Minister said, the Government statement was prepared after months of study. Few subjects, he said, had received more careful consideration than this, and those words were not put in lightly. I say that the combination of those figures that I have given and the Government's own statement compel the Government to act. To evade that action would be a terrible thing to do. What excuse would they have—the pressure from their back benches? What possible apology could they offer? This Act is breaking down, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman well knows it, and it is his responsibility as Home Secretary to see that the Act is properly implemented and that the right steps are taken to do so.
I turn from that to the longer-term, and there is a longer-term, problem. This is not simply the problem of procedures with which the right hon. and learned Gentleman and the Prime Minister dealt in the Gracious Speech and some aspects of which we debated on the last Amendment, such as the right of appeal, the various responsibilities of the Executive and the judiciary, and so on. The longer-term problem is policy as well as precedure, and the question that we have to ask ourselves is whether, bearing in mind not only the interests of the native inhabitants of this country, but the interests of the immigrants themselves, it is possible to go on with immigration at this pace. On the figures as they are emerging from the White Paper, it is becoming clearer and clearer to more and more people that this is not going to prove possible.
There is, of course, one great problem about Commonwealth immigrants which distinguishes them from alien immigrants. When a Commonwealth immigrant comes in on an A voucher granted by the Minister of Labour he takes a job for a month, but he is here for life. He is here with his wife and his children, and perhaps, if the Home Secretary is humane, with his granny as well. This is the problem, because under the system that we have at the moment for every Commonwealth imigrant whom we bring in, we also bring in four or five dependants. The reverse is the case with aliens. I am not talking about the short-term visitor but about the man who has a labour voucher for 12 months or more. For every four such aliens there is one dependant. This is borne out by the foreign entry statistics. For every four aliens there is one dependant, whereas for every Commonwealth immigrant there are four dependants, and they are here for all time.
Is that really in the interests either of this country or of the immigrants? I have studied this matter and discussed it with my hon. Friends and those with experience of it. People have told me that what they really want is conditional entry similar to that operated by the countries from which the immigrants come. It is probably a very good thing for a man to come here from a Commonwealth country for a couple of years, do a job and get experience here, get associated with our trade union movement, and so on, and then go back and do a good job of work in his own country. This may be an admirable thing to do, and at any rate it would take a great deal of the heat out of this situation. It would slow down enormously the number of new dependants who have a right to come in.
Of course, there has to be a study of the longer-term problem, but it is not just a technical study. It is a study about policy, about what this country really ought to do about Commonwealth immigrants, and it is not an easy problem. I am not pretending that it is. If we move the Commonwealth immigrant over and assimilate him with aliens in the policy study it may require big decisions about the registration of Commonwealth immigrants, and so on, and all sorts of difficulties and problems will arise, but I


believe that we would be failing in our duty in this Committee if we did not start to apply our minds to this matter. If we do not, we are just trying to stem a little a problem which, on the figures I have given, on the Government's own admission and, if I am allowed to refer to it in passing, on experience in the country, is manifestly arising under the administration of this Act at the present time.

Dr. Miller: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that if a Commonwealth immigrant has a good job and has his family with him he is much more likely to become integrated into the country than is an alien who is here for a short space of time and who cannot become integrated because he is going to leave shortly?

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Thorneycroft: To some extent this is a matter of opinion. If a man is going to stay for a long time, it is better that he should have his family with him. This is true of the alien and the Commonwealth immigrant, but, because of the different systems under which aliens and Commonwealth immigrants operate, fewer aliens settle here, and then only those who really feel themselves able to fit into this country and who have settled in and established themselves in jobs. The Minister of Labour knows this as well as I do. The alien who settles here is the man who has got on with his pals, fitted into a trade union, and so on. Having been here for four years, the Home Secretary gives him a permit. He gets his wife am children over and they become admirable citizens, but this is the reverse of the position with Commonwealth immigrants who, whether they are going to fit in or not, come over and have a right to stay here permanently with their wives, children and the rest of it.
I propose to deal now with the question of dependants. Under paragraph 19 of the White Paper the Home Secretary describes a new procedure—not involving legislation—under which immigrants let the Home Secretary or the Home Office know the number of dependants who are coming in. Are there any figures of the number of dependants waiting to come in? I think that in the public interest more consideration of this problem is necessary. I agree with the hon. Member

for Glasgow, Kelvingrove (Dr. Miller) that, in general, when a man is over here it is better for him to have his wife with him. I am not so happy about three wives coming with him. [Interruption.]

Mr. George Thomas: I know the right hon. Gentleman will be pleased to hear that we have no examples of two wives coming in with an immigrant.

Mr. Thorneycroft: I am delighted to hear that. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] There is nothing to withdraw. I am saying that I am not very happy with three wives, and no hon. Member has ever been asked to withdraw that remark. I am agreeing with the hon. Member for Kelvingrove that in general it is better that a Commonwealth immigrant, or indeed an alien who is staying here for any length of time, should have his wife and children with him. I think that is right, but I think we ought to be told the number who, so to speak, are in the background waiting to come in. If it were decided to move over from the system of the right to permanent residence which today exists for the Commonwealth immigrant to the system which operates for the alien immigrant, experience shows, and the Government's statistics show, that the problem of the dependants, would be very markedly reduced, if not solved. That is the longterm question of policy.
There is a long-term question of procedure. We have debated it in another context already this afternoon, but it applies in this context too. It applies not just to deportation, but to entry under Part I of the Act. The problem is: when someone arrives, should it be an executive decision, or a judicial decision whether to let him stay? These are not very simple questions, and obviously when one is considering them one considers aliens as well as Commonwealth immigrants. One considers wide questions like the whole of our law on extradition and fugitive offenders. It is an immensely complex field and it will take months and months of struggle.
Let us not pretend that matters of this kind can be solved by any independent committee in a few weeks, or even months. Even when it has been discussed by the committee there still follows, rightly, very anxious consideration in Whitehall and between Ministers, because


some of these questions go to the root of our constitutional arrangements. That consideration should take place, but it would be a disgrace for this Government to say that we have to wait for all that before dealing with things which they themselves admit are already greatly weakening their control. We cannot let the best be the enemy of the good to that extent.
I want to say a few words about the more positive side of Part I. The question is not only how many people we let in under the Commonwealth Immigrants Act but how we deal with them when they are let in. Unless we face that problem and debate it it is very difficult to debate the Act, because if some of the social structures are already breaking down the case for operating Part I of the Act more stringently than in the past is very strong. Equally, on the other hand, if we find that we can deal with this question reasonably easily, and where suggestions can be put forward from either side of the Committee for dealing with this matter, there is a case for being a little easy.
Some of my hon. Friends—and I am sure that this applies to some hon. Members opposite—will want to go into these matters more than I do. I merely want to make two passing references. The first concerns the question of education. Quite apart from the administration of Part I we have the gravest doubt whether the Government have yet organised themselves to deal with the practical results of the operation.
Let us consider the question of education. The other day I read a series of articles which appeared in the Daily Express on the subject. They were good articles. One said:
There is a characteristically British reluctance to admit that in the past any problem existed. Indeed it seems to have been considered bad form to 'count heads'. 'Thought is now being given', said the Ministry official cautiously. 'to a nation-wide inquiry through local education authorities to assess the scope and size of the problem'.
When we think of the appalling problems that exist in parts of the country at the moment on the education front we might have hoped that this inquiry had started a little earlier. The results are now beginning to come through. The Report goes on to say that

even if the inquiry is undertaken results cannot be expected soon. 'We hope to have a picture by the spring,' said the official"—
that is, a Ministry official—
I asked if they knew in what areas the immigrant children were living. We know roughly where they are', he said, 'But it seems to vary a good deal. Of course it's hard to keep pace, as there are no valid statistics. We have known for a long time that this is an increasing problem in a lot of areas and a lot of, schools'. But the Central Government has been hesitant to prod, let alone probe, local education authorities. Short of legislation by Parliament the Minister claims it can do little.
I can let the Minister have a copy of the article. I am sure that his Department has a copy.
I hope that inquiries have been made, not only in his Department but in the Ministry of Education. Is legislation necessary? If it is—I am quoting what has been said by officials, but I am prepared to be contradicted—the House should find time for it. It is one of the most pressing of our social problems.
Let us now turn to the problem of housing. In the People the other day I read an account of what has happened in Lambeth. Lambeth has a very fine record in this matter and has been trying to tackle a very difficult problem. There may be instances of discrimination, but for every instance of discrimination there are thousands of instances of people dealing fairly between man and man, whatever their colour. There is much to praise in the atmosphere in Lambeth in this connection, but
in one of the frankest documents ever issued by a local authority on the immigration problem, Lambeth Council appeals for 'massive assistance' from the Government. Until this comes … the problem remains insoluble.
Anyone who knows that area knows what it is like.
In the White Paper the Government say that they will give help in the usual way by providing that the more houses that are built the more help is given. Is that really good enough? Is not special assistance required for those areas which are hardest hit by the problem? Before they are finished the Government will have to deal with this problem not simply on the control side but on the constructive side—in questions of education and housing. Something more is required than merely to say, "We will help by providing more social workers, and the


rest." Heaven knows that is necessary, but the Government may have to treat some of these areas in a really special way.
I want to summarise what I have said. First, I cannot think that the Government can be justified in failing to honour the pledges that they have made in their White Paper. It was published only last August, and it was produced only after a most careful study. They made it plain that unless they took urgent action in a number of important fields the situation might break down. These were serious words, and the Committee should take them seriously.
I have exercised a good deal of restraint on the subject of immigration, as anyone can see who studies my speeches on the subject. I am not one who wants to drag the matter unnecessarily into party politics, but if pledges made only a few months ago are to be dishonoured by the Government it is a political issue of the first order, and must be dealt with as such.
The first thing that we should ask the Government is whether they are going to carry out the policy that they themselves have put forward. Secondly, in the longer term, they should direct their attention not only to problems of procedure but to problems of policy. We all learn as we go on in these matters; I am not going back over the years, or through their reversal of form, because I dare say that in this matter no party is beyond reproach. They should ask themselves whether they should not deal with the facts as they are known now, and as the figures are emerging. The right hon. Gentleman should ask himself whether the Government are not going to cause an explosion which will do damage to the immigrants themselves as well as to this country.
Is it not worth while beginning to think afresh on this subject, and to ask ourselves whether we could not deal more fairly with immigrants in this matter if we treated them in the same way that we treat aliens. This is not a matter which should he dismissed. If we are going to do a long-term study of procedures the policy to be pursued is more important than the question of the machinery to be used to implement that policy. I ask the right hon. Gentleman, either within Whitehall or in a Cabinet Committee, to

have the suggestions that I have put forward carefully studied.
Thirdly, some people have criticised the Government for weakness in control and for "running out" on the White Paper but many of my hon. Friends and I are equally concerned about a certain flabbiness on the positive side—in education and housing. I do not pretend that the task is easy. The problems which some of these local authorities are facing are enormous. We talk about not having more than 30 per cent. coloured children in a school. Think of the problems of transportation which are involved in dealing with and administering a policy of that kind. Some of these authorities say that they cannot do it unless they get more Government assistance. So, on the positive side as well as in other respects, we ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to adopt for the Government a rather more robust approach to one of the most difficult problems which confronts this country.

7.30 p.m.

Sir F. Soskice: Some things we agree upon. This is a most difficult subject; it is a painful subject and one on which we all ought to exercise restraint. Generally, the right hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Thorneycroft) does exercise restraint, but I thought that he was a little below his usual form today in throwing out a rather jeering, pejorative reference to "three wives". I hope that in this very important debate on immigration—if he wishes, he may use the phrase "coloured immigration"—we will be able to continue as we have in the past and treat this as a great problem which concerns our community, not appropriate for party political controversy.
It is upon that basis that I propose to try to deal with the case he made this afternoon. I and my hon. friends have considered how best we could assist the Committee in approaching this subject. The conclusion to which we came, and subject to my colleagues being fortunate enough to catch the eye of the Chair, is as follows. The right hon. Member for Monmouth has challenged me particularly over the subject of controls, which are the particular responsibility of my Department.
However, he rightly touched also on the subjects of education and housing.


It is obvious that, in a broad human problem like this, which now affects a million of our fellow citizens, the responsibility of a number of Departments is involved. We thought that it would be for the convenience of the Committee that all problems such as education, health and housing, should be dealt with at a later stage in the debate—which I apprehend may continue for some time—by my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary, and I will deal with control.
A crucial feature of the debate may be the question of the number of vouchers to be issued. The subject of the absorption of labour into this community is obviously one which features very prominently in any consideration we can give to the problem. It was hoped that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour—again if he catches the eye of the Chair—would address himself to that topic at a later stage in the debate. Therefore, we hope that, for the assistance of right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House, we can give the Government's answer in the course of a broad survey of the problems which now present themselves.
I would first give some account of the figures for which the right hon. Member asked. He asked first about paragraph 19 of the White Paper and wanted to know whether the forms had got out. The answer is that the forms have gone out. The White Paper promised that they would go out in September: in fact, they were sent out last month. There has been, so far, a response in terms of hundreds; about 500 dependants are covered by the particulars given in response to those forms. He went on to rehearse some of the figures which form a major subject of consideration when we approach this matter.
He asked about the position with regard to 1965, after having reminded the Committee of the earlier figures. I will seek to comment on the break-up of those figures, relevant—I hope the right hon. Gentleman will agree—to control in particular. As he pointed out, from the "new" Commonwealth countries—if I may use the phrase—during the whole of 1964, there was a net inward balance of about 62,000. He mentioned the figure of about 9,000, which is sometimes referred to as the "crude evasion figure".
He then gave the figures for the first six months of 1965 on a comparable basis and I can bring this a little more up to date. In the first nine months of 1965—that is to say, up to the end of September—the net inward balance was about 50,000. The number admitted for settlement was about 41,000 and the balance was about 9,000.
I think it right to give that figure because, when the right hon. Gentleman was giving the figure, he referred to what he called a discrepancy figure of 7,000 which now, in another three months, had gone up by 2,000. In the last period of the year, as happened in 1964, there may well be a decline in that discrepancy figure. Hon. Members may recollect that in the last three months of the year there is sometimes a net outflow which reduces the total discrepancy figure. It is now 9,379.
I should like to call the attention of the Committee to one figure. Those admitted for settlement in the first nine months of 1965, as I said, totalled some 41,000. The reason I particularly refer to that figure is that, as in 1964, of the numbers accepted for settlement in that year, there was a very large proportion of dependants. The Committee has on previous occasions considered the situation in which there is overseas a very large number of wives and dependent children under the age of 16. Estimates have been given of a figure of 500,000. There is no means of telling whether that is right or wrong, and one can refer to it only as a problematical figure.
However, it is perfectly clear that there is still overseas a very large number of dependent wives and children. In 1964, of the 52,000-odd "new" Commonwealth citizens who were admitted for settlement, about 37,000 were dependants. Obviously, that means that there are now coming to this country—perhaps in increasing numbers—dependants who have all along been entitled under the terms of the 1962 Act to come, who have remained in the countries of origin until their menfolk had arrived here, secured steady incomes and then called for them to join them in this country.
There is that large pool of wives and dependants in overseas countries who may, over the years, be expected to come to this country and who, under the 1962 Act, have an absolute, unfettered right


to come here. Thus, out of 52,000 for settlement in 1964, some 37,000 were wives and dependants. In the first nine months of 1965, we see the same pattern. Out of 41,000 settled here, no fewer than 30,000 were dependants from overseas. That gives a very different picture from that which might at first be thought to be the right one when one looks at the gross figures which have been relayed. Of the 41,000 who have settled in nine months in this country, there is—if I may use this phrase in terms of human beings; I hope that it does not seem too hard and heartless—a drawing upon the wives and children waiting overseas to the extent of about 30,000.
In due course—unless we change the terms of the Act, which nobody has hitherto proposed, by taking away the unfettered rights of those people to come here—over the years the wives and children who are now overseas will wish to follow their menfolk to this country and join them in family units, the menfolk having established themselves here and having put themselves in a position to earn stable incomes. Therefore, the intake in 1965 is a reasonably modest one. On top of the difference between the wives and children and the intake of those for settlement, there are about 11,000, and what the right hon. Gentleman called the discrepancy figure of about 9,000.

Mr. Buck: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman not agree that it is vitally important in assessing the whole of this problem to do everything we can to find out the numbers of people who might in future years be likely to come here as dependants? In this context, would he think it unreasonable to suggest that over, say, the next six months or a year those who are here should be required to register their dependants so that we may have some idea of the numbers involved?

Sir F. Soskice: That is similar to the scheme outlined in paragraph 19 of the White Paper, although that paragraph does not go as far as the hon. Gentleman's suggestion. However, it would be a major undertaking to ask the Commonwealth citizens who are now here—coloured citizens, new and old Commonwealth citizens—to undertake a large census of that sort, and whether or not it

would serve a useful purpose is, I should have thought, open to considerable doubt.

Mr. Thorneycroft: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman explain this point for greater clarity? Following that intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. Buck), I do not quite understand why, under paragraph 19, the Home Secretary does not know the numbers because he says in paragraph 19, "You have every right to be here but we do not know how many dependants you have overseas". Could one not also say, "It is rather unfair to the immigration officer not to know how many dependants are involved, so that all should use the form"? In any event, the right hon. and learned Gentleman must know how many certificates have been applied for.

Sir F. Soskice: Yes indeed, but I did not want to overburden the Committee with a great many figures. Since the form came into use in October, 260 completed forms have been received at the Home Office. Those are from people who are living in this country, and paragraph 19 applies to persons already settled here and who wish their dependants to join them. Those 260 completed forms contain a list of 569 dependants—so, as far as it goes, it will be seen that it would be a very long process to get a completely reliable estimate of the total number of wives and children who are still overseas. In any case, there must be a considerable number. The relevant and important thing to point out is that of those settled in this country this year there has been a drawing upon, as it were, of wives and children overseas to the extent of about 30,000, which presents a rather different picture.
I return to the speech of the right hon. Member for Monmouth, who said that he thought that our policy did not go nearly far enough; that is, the policy in the White Paper, taken in conjunction with the measures which I announced in February of this year—the policy which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister pointed out that we stand by. I retort by asking the right hon. Gentleman a question. I have spoken of the dependants; the wives and children overseas. Under the 1962 Act they have


an absolute right to come here and cannot be stopped. The Home Secretary, and no other Minister, has any power to refuse them entry so long as they establish who they are.
Having said that, I now ask the right hon. Gentleman, in all friendliness and without wishing to try to make this a party issue, whether his party would change Section 2 in that respect. It is an important question and I ask him to answer it.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Thorneycroft: I hope to give the right hon. and learned Gentleman a fair answer. This is why my hon. Friend has been pressing him on this matter. It is indeed very difficult to deal with this on a basis of a completely unknown figure. The right hon. and learned Gentleman says that he has had applications for 200 certificates, amounting to 500 dependants coming in. I believe that the first thing he should do—and this in fairness to everyone concerned—is to insist that any immigrant who is here and who wants his family to come over should provide the numbers concerned, the members of that family. I suggest that that is not an unreasonable thing to ask. It is, in effect, very close to paragraph 19. We could then discuss this matter together. Let us discuss it in as uncontroversial a way as possible against a background of known facts.

Sir F. Soskice: As the right hon. Gentleman says, paragraph 19 does not go quite as far as that. It provides that the immigrants here who wish to be rejoined by their wives and children may apply for a form and fill in that form with the details of their dependants. That would greatly facilitate their entry. I am not sure that I quite follow just what the right hon. Gentleman is proposing. Is he suggesting that we should now go round to every father of a family in this country who is an old or new Commonwealth citizen and say, "You must fill in a form saying how many dependants you have overseas"? If we did that and they all complied I dare say that we would get an accurate estimate of the number of wives and children overseas. However, it would be a major undertaking which would need a host of people to carry out in order to try to compel all of them to fill in those forms. It would be a large, new scale, new

fashioned census which would be very difficult to undertake.

Mr. Thorneycroft: I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is not going to raise too high the question of administrative inconvenience. We are here dealing with one of the largest social problems confronting this country now. I am not asking him to put a ban on all the dependants coming in. I have made some suggestions about how I think the future numbers might be limited. I am as conscious as he is about the problems of husbands living apart from wives and so on. This is a desperately difficult problem, and surely the first thing which the right hon. and learned Gentleman should do with a really difficult problem of this sort is to try to get a measure of the problem, to see the size of it. Merely to talk about the number of clerks who would be needed to get these forms filled in is not an adequate answer.

Sir F. Soskice: I am always perfectly willing to consider anything. As I say, it would be a most elaborate process. We have the best estimates we can get on the best information available to us; and, on any view, there is a very large number of wives and children overseas.
I must return to the question I put to the right hon. Gentleman. He is critical of the Government's policy. I ask him whether his party, of which he is a distinguished member, would seek to amend Section 2 of the 1962 Act. Would it seek to put up some barrier against wives who wish to join their husbands here and against children under 16 who wish to join their parents? If he says "No"—and I would greatly hope that that would be his answer because it would be very inhumane if he did not say "No"—then he and his party are committed to accepting, as the party in power at the moment is committed to accepting, the fact that wives and children have a right under the terms of the 1962 Act to join their husbands and fathers in this country. Therefore, when the right hon. Gentleman says, "The Government's policy does not go far enough" I ask him where we fall down over it and whether he accepts that what I have said is right. I hope that he will reply, "We accept that you are right".
I come to the question of vouchers. They have been reduced in number under


the terms of the White Paper to 8,500 a year, including 1,000 for Malta. Would the right hon. Gentleman reduce it still further or say that no vouchers should be issued, or would he cut the number down to 5,000, 1,000, 8,000, 7,000—or what number would he suggest? Indeed, it would not make very much difference if we made just that change.
I should like to know from the right hon. Gentleman, in the name of his party: would he seek to reduce the vouchers further? He voiced what many people might think was a criticism that has some validity in saying that we draw on the doctors, and that the doctors are greatly needed in the countries from which they come. Many of them go back to those countries and take with them, we are glad to think, the experience they have acquired in our hospitals and from our teaching. It is excellent that they should take that experience back, and a great many of them do go back. It is a question of how the division between the A and B vouchers should be made, and my right hon. Friend will be very ready to answer any questions on that point that may be raised.
If we accept that the wives and children must come, there is very little room to change the scale of voucher allowance, and I should like the right hon. Gentleman to accept that fact. I ask him: Is there all that room for very much change? The right hon. Gentleman has spoken to me in very severe terms about control. I would refer him to the words used by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 9th November when, speaking on the Loyal Address, he gave the answer. I should like to repeat that answer, because his language is perfectly clear.
If the right hon. Gentleman will refer to the OFFICIAL REPORT, he will see that my right hon. Friend proceeded to speak of the White Paper as a whole, and said:
This remains our policy, and we are implementing it.
That is perfectly true—we are implementing it; the rate of vouchers has been scaled down to 8,500, and we are taking those measures that are outlined in the White Paper. We have not yet introduced the legislation which paragraph 25 foreshadowed, and I should like to remind the Committee of what exactly the Government's approach to that is.

One thing I was rather glad to hear from the right hon. Gentleman. I understand him to say that he thinks that there is a case for putting aliens on the same footing as Commonwealth citizens. He may be right or wrong about that. Many people would say that we should not treat Commonwealth citizens at least any worse than aliens. That is a view, I hope, that he would equally support, but it follows as a matter of necessary logic from his acceptance of the position that that is an open question which we should investigate; that we are perfectly right, as the Prime Minister says we are to do, in setting up this committee. That is the obvious answer.
I should like the Committee to look closely at my right hon. Friend's language. In the penultimate paragraph of column 50 of the OFFICIAL REPORT he says:
Both these problems raise very thorny problems, not least the problem of securing the right balance of treatment as between Commonwealth citizens and aliens"—
That is the same point on which the right hon. Gentleman dilated for a moment—
and again the broader problem—the need for the Home Secretary to keep a balance in his responsibility to Parliament and the nation for the proper administration of the system of control, and on the other hand the need to ensure that the individual concerned has a due and fair opportunity to state his case.
All of that, I would hope, especially from the terms of the previous debate, the right hon. Gentleman would gladly endorse; the previous debate, added to what he has said this evening.
My right hon. Friend went on to say:
We want to get this legislation right"—
That is, the legislation dealing with the entry and departure of Commonwealth citizens and aliens alike—
and the Government have decided to appoint a small independent committee which can consider the whole problem and make recommendations …".
He then sets out the terms of reference, and concludes:
… and in the light of this we shall prepare the legislation as soon as possible thereafter."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th November, 1965; Vol. 720, c. 49–50.]
I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman cavils at that approach. He


has pointed to the problem of the interrelationship of our treatment of aliens with our treatment of Commonwealth citizens. He has said that the legislation is not right. We want to consider it in order to get it right. We have set up this Committee to investigate the whole problem. It will make recommendations to us, and we shall legislate as soon as possible.
Therefore, when he asks whether we stand by paragraph 25 or whether we are running away from the White Paper, the answer is that we are doing nothing of the sort. That White Paper, as the Prime Minister said, was formulated as a result of the most careful consideration after the Mountbatten Mission had gone to the Commonwealth countries. It was most carefully and anxiously considered before it was printed and, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said perfectly clearly, we stand by it. We say that before we legislate we want to make quite sure that we get humane, sensible and balanced legislation; that we get legislation which deals not only with the alien and protects his rights, but that the justice that should be accorded to him should equally be accorded to the Commonwealth citizen.
That is our approach. We stand by this White Paper, and intend to legislate in the light of the recommendations made by the Committee in due course. That is my answer to the right hon. Gentleman. We are fully conscious, and always have been, of the strains under which they live. They are admirable citizens, and they play a useful and excellent part in the community; they are likeable, and they are easily assimilable when one gets to know them, but when they congregate in large numbers social frictions do develop—

Dr. Miller: Before my right hon. and learned Friend leaves the point of granting permission for entry to Commonwealth citizens, will he say whether this Committee will consider extending and increasing the number in the event, say, of some disaster occurring in a Commonwealth country or Colony? I am thinking, for example, of what happened in Tristan da Cunha, when citizens were brought to this country and settled here. Could

that apply also, for example, to Rhodesia, where there may be four million Commonwealth citizens who are facing a disaster at present and who may wish to come here?

Sir F. Soskice: We have said quite clearly what we would do in the case of citizens of Rhodesia who might wish to come here, live here, or take refuge here, and I cannot add to what we have said. In the case of a disaster such as that at Tristan da Cunha, of course, as a matter of ordinary common kindness, if people are in great distress we help them as we helped those people, and we are glad to do so. I do not know what sort of disaster my hon. Friend has in mind, but if he means the kind of natural disaster that occurred at Tristan da Cunha I hope that this country would always respond to the claim of help to persons in distress.

Mr. Thorneycroft: Referring directly to the point that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was discussing—controls—he said that the Government produced paragraphs 23, 24 and 25 as their considered view of necessary measures to be taken. In paragraph 25, the Government said:
Without it"—
that is, the proposal:
the effectiveness of the control would be greatly weakened.
Is the Home Secretary proposing to legislate this Session? I must tell him that, if he is not, there are many of us on this side who feel that the Prime Minister was merely welcoming an opportunity to shove the whole of this problem under the carpet, forget it, and leave British residents for months, and perhaps for more than a year, without this protective legislation.

8.0 p.m.

Sir F. Soskice: That, I should have thought, was a discordant note introduced into a debate in which such a note was wholly inappropriate and I hope that we can get away from that kind of controversy. The Prime Minister has been perfectly clear in this matter. He said that legislation, when it is introduced, will take account of the recommendations of this committee. It will be introduced as soon thereafter as possible. I cannot guarantee that it will be this Session, but the Prime Minister's word will be kept and it will


be as soon as it can be. That is what he has said. It is a promise to the House and the country that what has been said will certainly be fulfilled.
As the right hon. Member knows, we have a very important programme of social and legislative reforms, and we will, when we feel that we have the legislation in a completely appropriate and satisfactory form—to quote the Prime Minister's words, "as soon as possible thereafter—introduce the legislation. I am afraid that beyond that I cannot go.
That is the measure of the problem. It is a problem which is not the creation or fault of any Government. It is a problem which in its human aspects we should be glad to take on as a challenge. It is not a cardinal sin of a person who lives overseas in a more impoverished country a an our own to seek to come here. We should be glad to help him within our capacity, bearing in mind that we want him here not as a stranger but as a citizen and that, wherever we look, populations are moving and will go on moving all over the world as the world gets smaller in its confines.
Those are the answers I give to the right hon. Member. I hope that we shall continue to approach this problem in the future as we have been approaching it throughout the course of the year. If the right hon. Member criticises our policy and says that we fall short of what we intend to do, he should say so and should say what his party would do to improve it. He has no right to criticise us unless he has an alternative measure to propose to the House and the country.

Mr. Henry Brooke: What we are debating this evening is nothing less than whether we shall be able in this country to avoid the atmosphere of racial bitterness and outbreaks of racial hatred which hang like a menacing cloud permanently over America. This is something to which we must all set ourselves.
Listening to the Home Secretary, I had no doubt about his good will, but I was not quite so sure about his determination to save our children and grandchildren from what may come to this country if the right decisions are not taken now. It requires, of course, action both locally

and nationally. I agree with what is said in the White Paper about local liaison committees. My borough of Camden has set up a strong committee on community relations. I was glad to be present at the meeting to inaugurate that committee. This fulfils an essential need; responsible local people of all parties and none must be brought together to consider carefully what are the local implications and manifestations to which attention needs to be given quickly if an undesirable racial atmosphere is not to build up. I am sure that representatives of the immigrant community ought to be included in these committees.
Nationally, when I was Home Secretary I had the benefit of the Commonwealth Immigrants Advisory Council under Lady Reading's admirable chairmanship. It produced three excellent reports in my time, and another has been presented to the present Home Secretary. I am not at all clear why that Council has been wound up. It made an invaluable contribution in its time to the problems of assimilation of the enormous numbers of Commonwealth immigrants who poured into this country before there was any power of control. It seemed to me it would have been wiser to continue with that Council than to set it aside and to replace it by a new body.
If the Act of 1962, which made possible for the first time a control of the rate of immigration, had not been passed, the strains in this country would already by now have become insupportable. Anyone who looks at the figures for the years immediately before the control was brought in must accept that. When I was Home Secretary I received very interesting reports from the police in the year after control had become effective. I wanted to find whether in fact the operation of the Act had aggravated or mitigated tensions locally. Almost without exception the reports I got back were that the racial situation was improved. In most cases the principal reason given for that was that now there was a system of statutory control over the rate of entry of Commonwealth immigrants it seemed to people for the first time worth while to try to tackle the problem locally because, for the first time, there was evidence that the Government were trying to handle the situation nationally.
I am quite sure that the building up of acceptable social relationships throughout the country depends on national control over numbers of immigrants. What we have learned in these last three years is that the 1962 Act, which at the time was criticised as oppressive, was in fact not a sufficiently effective instrument. Parliament insisted at the time that the Act should be framed generously and administered generously. Immigration officers were given to understand that applicants to land here were to be given the benefit of the doubt. Questioning was not to be too searching. The applicant's bona fides was to be assumed.
In consequence of all that, after a time and as the pressure built up it became known among some of the would-be immigrants what methods to use if they wanted to evade the control. That is how the evasion started. For example, one could pretend falsely that one was a close relative of someone already in this country. Another way was to claim that one was coming as a student. Parliament had insisted that there must be absolutely no obstacle in the way of students coming from the Commonwealth to this country. That was entirely right, but it opened the door to people who pretended that they were coming as students but in fact did not apply themselves seriously to any course of study after they were here and simply entered the labour market.
Aliens are normally admitted to this country subject to a time limit. If they are found here long after that time limit has expired, the Government have the sanction of being able to deport them. But once a Commonwealth citizen had got past the immigration officer, he was here for good. Until recently, very few Commonwealth citizens were admitted subject to a time limit, although I understand from the Home Secretary that that is now being applied to students and some others. But it is no use fixing the condition of a time limit on an immigrant, unless there is an effective way of enforcing it. Up to now I do not believe there has been.
There must be an effective power of actually enforcing a time limit on the stay of Commonwealth citizens. Otherwise evasion cannot be penalised or stopped. That is what is worrying me

about the Government having drawn back from the firm words they used in the August White Paper about the necessity for further legislative action. The situation now, in 1965, demands a more complete machinery of control than Parliamentary opinion was willing to accept in 1962. The Government clearly recognised this fact in August of this year. Are they now, under pressure from their Left wing, running away from what they know to be the truth about that? In August the Government said that they regarded
it as important that there should be a speedy and effective power to repatriate immigrants who in one way or another … evade the stricter control over immigration that is now envisaged.
Do the Government still regard it as important, because by agreeing to set up this new Committee they have evidently postponed for a considerable time the moment when that new legislative action can be brought in? In August they said that it was necessary that it should be speedy. Do not they any longer think that it needs to be speedy now?

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Is the right hon. Gentleman implying that he would be against the setting up of such a Committee, whether for aliens or for Commonwealth immigrants? If he is in favour of the setting up of such a Committee, what is his objection to what the Government are doing?

Mr. Brooke: If the Committee is thought necessary, well and good, but the Committee certainly should not be allowed to cause delay to action which the Government themselves have said is speedily needed. It would be perfectly possible for the Government to ask Parliament straight away for powers in this respect, which they themselves have said are needed speedily, and then to carry out the longer-term inquiry if they thought fit.

Mr. Silverman: Does this mean that what the right hon. Gentleman is asking the Government to do is to pass the legislation first and consider whether it is right afterwards?

Mr. Brooke: I think the Government have in fact followed that line of action on several occasions already. I was not making a fresh appeal to them to pursue again their frequent course of action.
I hope I shall not be out of order, Mr. Lever, in comparing the procedure regarding Commonwealth immigrants with that affecting aliens. Control of alien immigration is exercised under a code which is now 50 years old and is continued from year to year in the strange way which we have been debating this evening. Control of Commonwealth immigrants rests upon a radically different code—this is important—which is less than four years old. We have, even in these three and a half years, learned a great deal about its strengths and its weaknesses. In the longer term I believe, like my right hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Thorneycroft), that a determined effort should be made to bring the two codes closer together and to replace the Aliens Act and the Commonwealth Immigrants Act with a single composite Measure. I fully recognise that that cannot be done in a few weeks or months. It requires long study. Where here are differences between the treatment of aliens and Commonwealth immigrants, I am sure that Commonwealth immigrants should have the preference. But I cannot believe that the two problems are so utterly distinct from one another that Parliament ought to accept indefinitely the continuance of these two utterly different and unrelated codes.
I do not see why Commonwealth citizens generally, like aliens generally, should not be admitted to this country in the first instance for a limited period. At the moment there are powers in the 1962 Act to do that in certain cases but not in other cases. The Home Secretary Knows as well as I do that it is extremely doubtful whether a time limit is effectively enforceable, until the new legislation which the Government said a few months ago was speedily needed has been Drought before Parliament.
When I said that I believed that Commonwealth immigrants, like aliens, should generally be admitted in the first instance subject to a time limit, I would certainly make an exception in favour of he wife and young children of an immigrant who is already here. That was the question which the Home Secretary put to my right hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth a short while ago. I cannot speak for my party. I can speak only for myself, but I have no doubt whatever about what my answer to that

would be. On that account I could not agree with the extreme suggestion I have heard made, though I have not heard it made in the House of Commons, that all further immigration should be halted, temporarily or permanently, until we can get the situation here at home under better control.
8.15 p.m.
Besides wives and children, of course we should admit and welcome genuine students, genuine holiday makers, genuine business visitors, and particularly we should welcome those men and women who want to come to this country and take a professional or vocational course here to fit them for life, in order that when they are qualified they can go to work in one of the developing countries. I certainly do not see why we should lay permanent claim to all those people who come to undergo training here. It would be unfair of us to do so. We should give every facility to those who wish to obtain such training in this country and then use their new-found skills elsewhere.
Having said that, I must state, except for a very small number to whom special circumstances may apply, I do not think that we ought to admit any more Commonwealth immigrants for permanent residence here until we have made much greater advance in providing for the million or so who are already here, and helping them to adjust themselves to life in Britain.
A few minutes ago the Home Secretary said that it would not make very much difference if we cut down the issue of vouchers. I must remind him that each new voucher holder who comes here will normally be the head of a family. In coming he will carry with him an entitlement to bring his wife and small children. They in due course will set up their own households in this country. It is the voucher holders who cannot be counted in ones alone. Each one means starting a new family in this country.
After all, a million Commonwealth immigrants here already amount to one in fifty of our whole population. There are vast tracts of the country where they are hardly ever seen. I am not surprised if right hon. and hon. Members coming from those constituencies are less acutely aware of the problem than we are in London and the big cities. If the million


were equally spread over the whole of England, Scotland and Wales, the problems of adjustment and mutual acceptance would be infinitely easier than they are. But there is no power of compulsory geographical direction in this country, and no one wishes there to be. It is idle dreaming to suggest that the problem can be solved in that way.
Perfectly naturally, the immigrants congregate where work for them is easy to find. Unfortunately, many of those places are also the places where there would be a housing problem even without them, and where their coming has made the clearance of slums and the improvement of housing conditions far more difficult than it would otherwise have been. It is not the overall numbers who are in the country; it is the local concentration that accentuates the risks of race feeling.
It is to guard now against the possibilities of race tension and race hatred in the future that I am concerned. It is primarily with this that Parliament should now be concerned. In all that I say and do on this crucial question, I intend to be guided by two firm principles, which I hope will be generally acceptable to the Committee. All people with lawful permission to live in this country as fellow citizens of ours should be treated alike, should have equal opportunities, and should be given every chance to bring up their children as good British citizens. There is a great deal more to be done, if we are to satisfy that principle.
Secondly, and parallel with that, the numbers of newcomers admitted to permanent residence here must be limited to those who can be successfully absorbed in our towns and cities. Having decided how many can be absorbed, we must make the control effective so that that purpose is achieved.
If we neglect either of the principles that I have stated, the risk and disaster of racial outbreaks in years ahead will become a certainty. We have to think far ahead. The Government must clear their minds as to what the broad lines of policy are to be towards future immigration of both Commonwealth citizens and aliens into this already fairly densely populated island.
This is the time, I submit, for fundamental thinking about that question, and

then for policy decisions based on longterm purposes, and not on day-to-day pressures. What the Committee is entitled to discover tonight is whether the Government and the party which supports them are clear in their minds on all this, whether they are firm in their purpose, and whether or not they are united.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: I would begin by taking up one of the remarks by the right hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Brooke). It seemed to me that he was arguing that there might be no solution to the problem of immigration and race relations in this country except by virtually limiting further immigration to the wives and other immediate dependants of those already here.
In arguing in this way, the right hon. Gentleman drew an unfair parallel with the United States. One of the striking differences between the United States and what has happened here in the last few years is that in the United States the bulk of the Legislature and Executive are now firmly committed against any form of racial discrimination and are moving away from discrimination based on quotas in their immigration policy towards a much more liberal immigration policy, and this at a time when we are moving in the opposite direction. I take this opportunity to pay a much deserved commendation to the United States.
I would ask the right hon. Gentleman a question, whether he believes that unlike France, unlike West Germany which has absorbed 1 million immigrants since the war, unlike the Netherlands which has absorbed 100,000 immigrants from Indonesia—its immigrant population is closely equivalent to what we have absorbed—we are incapable of achieving the same reasonably good race relations as the countries of the Continent have achieved? If that is the case, we must ask why this is so.
I am afraid that I disagree with the right hon. Member for Hampstead and the right hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Thorneycroft) when they argue that the result of the 1962 Measure was to improve race relations here. I believe that there has been a deterioration in the last few years. That deterioration has not followed because certain limits have been applied. Most of us would argue that there necessarily have to be certain


limits based on the capacity, economic and social, of this country to absorb people from outside, regardless of whether they are from the Commonwealth or other countries.
The crucial difference is that in the last two or three years we have failed to undertake the job of educating both the immigrant community and the host community, a job which fell to us to do. Time and again opportunities to show our public the true facts about immigration have been lost in the desire to win votes on a subject which is far too emotionally weighted already and far too crucial for the future of this country and the world for us to engage in such an operation.
I want to take two points which are consistently distorted and misunderstood First, there is the point about evasions. I was glad that the right hon. Member for Monmouth mentioned this. We must point out time and again that evasions occur on the part of all people who transfer from one country to another, not specifically immigrants to Britain, and not specifically immigrants from the new Commonwealth countries to this country. It is our duty not continually to build up the subject of evasion and demand more and more controls. We ought to try to put the matter in its context. How many of those whom we now call evaders evade because they still regard this country in some sense as their mother country but do not recognise the number of requirements which have to be satisfied before they can settle down here? I have met Australian students who fail to register but go on living here and eventually take jobs, and they do this not because they want to break the law but because they are unaware that the law exists.
Again and again the right hon. Member for Hampstead stressed the weight imposed on the social services and housing by the immigrants. We must look at this rationally. We must balance what immigrants, alien and Commonwealth, contribute to this country against what they take out. I do not believe that even hon. Gentlemen opposite who keep labouring the point about diseases brought into this country could deny that the contribution made to the National Health Service by Commonwealth immigrants is infinitely greater than what they take out

of the country. I do not believe that it can be shown, although it can be argued, that even in respect of housing the contribution made to the construction industry by all immigrants who claim to be Irish is less than what they take out. All one can say is that the assumptions have to be proved.
Finally, we must face the fact that there is a genuine balance here. On the one hand, there is the improvement of the standard of living here brought about by the presence of the immigrants—and that means an improvement in the rate of economic growth. On the other hand, there is the attitude which hon. Gentlemen opposite are increasingly taking towards immigration of all sorts, that no more should be allowed. If that is the view which they take, all right. But let them be honest and admit that this means a more slowly rising standard of living than we should otherwise get and that this is the price that our people will have to pay. Let them contrast it with West Germany, where the increase in the standard of living and economic growth certainly owes, in the view of the West German authorities, a great deal to their relatively liberal policy towards immigration.
I turn to one or two specific points. First, I congratulate the Home Secretary very warmly on setting up the Committee to consider appeals against deportation. All of us on this side of the Committee are glad about that, and I hope that hon. Gentlemen opposite are, too. We believe that it would be extremely dangerous to undermine our democratic structure in order to pursue a temporarily popular policy. We believe that in this respect the setting up of the Committee is a step towards the protection of our fundamental and vital institutions. Secondly, we are grateful for what at least appears to be the emergence of a rather more liberal attitude towards those dependants who, through no fault of their own, require the support of an immigrant already in this country.
8.30 p.m.
However, having said that, let me make two constructive comments. First, the White Paper and the Immigration Act, 1962, whose continuation we are considering this evening, both depend to a very great extent on the services given by immigration officers. I have no doubt


that the men and women of the Immigration Service do their very best under what is often great strain, but we must recognise that in the present situation more and more executive powers are being given to them and that more and more depends on their ability to make a judgment, which is necessarily often a judgment made within a matter of minutes.
I therefore suggest that we should try as far as possible to place at each of the main ports and airports of entry someone capable of speaking the essential languages used by Commonwealth immigrants in order to be able not only to interpret but, as the situation requires, as far as possible to act as a liaison officer between the person entering and the immigration officer when the language spoken by the person wishing to enter is not primarily English.
Secondly, I ask my right hon. and learned Friend to consider either publishing the rules now governing the behaviour of immigration officers or, if that is not possible, at least making them available to the new Commonwealth Immigration Committee under the chairmanship of the Archbishop of Canterbury so that full consideration can be given to the rules by a body set up for the purpose.
The right hon. Member for Hampstead spoke of avoiding the problem of race relations in this country by getting rid of the problem altogether, but of course, it is too late to do that. Most of us on this side of the Committee would not think it right to do so, but, anyway, it is too late.

Mr. Brooke: What does the hon. Lady mean by "getting rid of the problem"? There are one million people here already and their number will multiply. How can there be any question of getting rid of them?

Mrs. Williams: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman agrees with me that the problem cannot be got rid of. The point I was making was that several times in the course of his speech he insisted on saying that we would find that we had the same sort of race relations problem as in the United States if we did not now as far as possible end further immigration into this country. What he has to face up to, as we all have,

is what price has to be paid for an illiberal attitude towards immigrant people.
As the Government and the Opposition of 1962 moved towards a more restrictive attitude towards immigration, they placed upon themselves a crucial responsibility for improving relations between the immigrant community and the host community. The right hon. Member for Hampstead spoke of the creation of British citizens out of an earlier generation of immigrant people. The section of the White Paper dealing with immigration is absolutely crucial to this issue of creating citizens out of the immigrant community here.
Perhaps particularly in respect of apprenticeships, where we are beginning to create a skilled and leading group among the immigrant community, and in respect of fair employment practices, not least promotion in employment, we need to ask the Government to look very carefully at the execution of the policy so far laid down to see whether we can create within the immigrant community a body of people who recognise that in promotion and apprenticeship and education itself—and in this I want to pay some personal respects to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science for the efforts which he has made in this direction and which, although not always successful, have certainly been well intentioned—integration lies at the very nub of the problem.
We will be able to look with genuine sincerity at those who look to us and who ask, "What lead did you give in what was the most crucial domestic problem of your times?" only if we are able to say that we worked on immigration and made sure that these people became British citizens one generation later on. We will be able to avoid the problems which the right hon. Gentleman outlined only if we make such an effort to integrate those already in our midst.

Mr. William Deedes: I find myself in considerable sympathy with nearly everything the hon. Lady the Member for Hitchin (Mrs. Shirley Williams) has said. I hope that she and other hon. Members opposite do not necessarily assume that there is a fundamental difference in philosophy between the outlook of some of us on this issue and the outlook of the hon. Lady herself and others. That would not be true.
I want to return to the exchanges between the Home Secretary and my right Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Thorneycroft) on the issue of the dependants and the point which arises from those exchanges. The Home Secretary challenged my right hon. Friend on what his policy would be in respect of these dependants and my right hon. Friend replied that, without further knowledge of the prospects and without more knowledge of the figures at stake, he found it impossible to answer the question.
That brings me to the main point which I want to make to the Committee in a very short speech. It is an aspect of this whole problem, on which I hope Members on both sides of the Committee may find something in common. It is something which has exercised me for a long time, and I now think it exercises the Home Secretary. It is the total inadequacy of the system for keeping an adequate record of Commonwealth immigrants who enter this country, who reside in this country and who leave this country. I do not believe that we are going to be able to carry on much longer without a better system of accounts. I hope that in saying that I speak for both sides of the Committee, because no one benefits from a slipshod method of accountancy which leaves everyone in doubt as to what is really happening. We must face up to the need for a better system, not least in the interests of the immigrants themselves.
I do not believe that we can tackle evasions, sensibly or justly—and it is accepted by the right hon. and learned Gentleman that there are evasions—on the present basis. Nor can we get, and no one is able to give in the course of this debate, the accurate picture which ought to be given on the immigrant state. I mean not immigrant prospects but the present immigrant state. This must include not only those who come, but those who have left. I am not without misgivings on this and a certain amount of reluctance, but I am convinced, after looking through this pretty thoroughly, that we shall have to adopt part of the machinery which is now used for checking the entry and exodus of foreginers or aliens under the other head.
In the White Paper the Government really go far towards admitting the evi-

dence which leads one to this conclusion, only it seems that they deny the conclusion itself. There may be reasons for doing this. I think that at the time when the Act was first discussed in this House, in 1962, there were reasons for keeping a very strict dividing line between the system which then obtained for aliens and the system that we hoped would obtain for Commonwealth citizens.
This is a point which now ought to receive fresh attention, for administrative reasons. Paragraphs 23 and 24 of the White Paper foreshadow action which would demand a more systematic approach to our accounting, if that is the right word. Paragraph 23 says:
The Government propose to seek a general power to impose conditions on the admission of any Commonwealth citizen who is subject to control.
This simply cannot be done on the system under which we are now operating. Such a system can only work if there exist for Commonwealth citizens something of the machinery which now works in respect of aliens. It bears stating, and I do not think it has been said tonight, that the present system operates most unfairly upon the highly skilled corps of immigration officers. A number of challenges have been thrown down tonight on whether there should be executive or judicial responsibility for refusal of entry. What happens in effect is that the immigration officers at the ports hold the bulk of the responsibility in respect of Commonwealth citizens for decisions which are taken.
I suggest to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that they are being given impossible duties. This is illustrated in the words of paragraph 11 of the White Paper which says:
On 4th February, 1965, the Home Secretary informed the House of Commons that he had found evidence that evasion of the existing control was being practised on a considerable scale. He was therefore instructing immigration officers to scrutinise more carefully the intentions and bona fides of Commonwealth citizens who sought entry, and to make full use of their power to impose conditions.
Members of the Committee will accept that this reads all right in a White Paper. But what is one asking the immigration officers to do? Those of us who know a little about this work which they are being called upon to do will know that all this is much more easily said than done. The


Committee ought to realise this. The officers handle something like 16 million people in the course of a year. This figure rises by about 10 per cent. every year. The figures were quoted in another place by a representative of the Joint Under-Secretary's Department. Unless conditions can be enforced, they become valueless. I submit that as things are they cannot be enforced.
I hope that hon. Members, and the Home Secretary in particular, will refresh their memories from the proceedings in the 11th Report of the Estimates Committee. Pages 55 to 91 go thoroughly into the method practised in respect of aliens and Commonwealth citizens at the ports, which in the context of this debate illuminates precisely what has to happen if we seek stringently to check or to control entry into this country.
In the case of all those who are granted leave to land, those who are called aliens—totalling, I thought, 2½million, and the Home Secretary mentioned a figure of 2,700,000, out of a total of 15–16 million a year—those not holding British passports are required to fill in a landing card and later an embarkation card. This, indeed, is what most of us are required to do when we enter or leave Commonwealth countries. That is a point to be borne in mind.
Those cards concerning aliens are dispatched to Princeton House, alphabetically filed and paired. This is called the Aliens' Passenger Traffic Index and 75 per cent. of it relates to bona fide visitors who come and go. When, however, after a specified period, one card is not matched by another, chasing inquiries are set afoot.
At this point we may well find that there must be a divergence in the system. We know who have come in, we know who have gone out. We have an accounting method, and linked to this in the case of aliens there is for all except the permanent foreign residents, 300,000 in number, the need for a portion of them to register with the police. In the case of Commonwealth citizens, there is no card of one sort or another and no registration. In other words, in the first category all are accounted for individually. As to the second category the Joint Under-Secretary will I think accept that the

record is simply statistical. The Home Secretary had to admit in last year's debate that
Since the control began, nearly half a million visitors have come into this country, but it is difficult for me to inform the Committee what is the number who went out because Commonwealth citizens leaving the United Kingdom are not, under the existing system of control, classified.
That, I think, is still true.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman went on to say that when they leave,
one does not know whether they are workers, visitors or students, because no record is kept to classify them".
The right hon. and learned Gentleman added to those remarks the observation that a certain number of visitors had undoubtedly stayed on and evaded the terms of their admission and that this was a problem of seriousness. Those were the Home Secretary's words.
Up to now, for good reasons—as both sides, I think, would accept—we have set our face against too close a relationship between the two systems. Again, the Home Secretary said that
to go further than the existing scheme of control … one has to contemplate … the type of severe control which we apply to aliens."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th November. 1964; Vol. 702, cc. 280–1, 284.]
In our earlier proceedings tonight the Home Secretary gave that system a fairly good chit in response to some of the criticisms that were being directed at him by the Committee.
I hope that no hon. Member is under the illusion that we are discussing a Draconian system in contrast to a more friendly system, because that is not true. The Home Secretary's own words are quite correct. He does not say that it would be impossible to do this. He merely says that it would be very much resented. This is the thing to which I hope minds will be turned afresh. I agree that there would be substantial difficulties in bringing in the aliens' machinery—the accountancy side of it—for this category of Commonwealth immigrant. What I must ask is: do the defects which arise from evasion and other problems outweigh those difficulties?
8.45 p.m.
There seem to me four reasons why this matter should be considered very seriously. First, evasions cannot be


checked without a better system, and evasions are grossly unjust, not only to those already here, but to those who are kept out. It can be just to none if some who know the ropes can get in while those who are out and who try to come here a straightforward way are kept out.
Secondly, there is the question of repatriation to which the White Paper refers. How can repatriation be justly worked without a basic check system? Take the case of a Commonwealth student who has turned to employment in this country. What check can be kept in respect of him? Or take the person who has been repatriated and then has returned to this country. In respect of aliens, that is not generally possible. In respect of Commonwealth citizens, it is possible, and it is to nobody's advantage that that should be so.
Thirdly, I think that we must declare more closely the statistics of those who come and go, not only in totals, which is done now, but in categories. That seems to me an imperative necessity at this stage. This has a bearing on national acceptance of those who are already here. It is no good blinking the fact that at least one fundamental source of disquiet among reasonable people is the belief that we have no exact control; we do not know exactly what we are doing. We cannot always account for all the numbers. The White Paper makes clear that this is a justified source of disquiet.
Fourthly, in so far as we get the system to work, we have to misuse over-worked immigration officers who, I repeat, are given an intolerably difficult task. For political reasons, we require them to undertake work which they should not be asked to undertake. We call on them to exercise judgment which it should not be for them to exercise. In the absence of adequate machinery, we ask public servants to make good a deficiency which it is not their job to make good. This is not only inefficient; it is unjust. All law which cannot be enforced is unjust, and it is the greatest folly to believe that we can temper justice with mercy by flaccid administration. I would describe the administration in this respect as flaccid. We confound justice; we do not assist it.
I know from some little experience of the Aliens' Department that some hon. Members are critical of it, both in par-

ticular and in general respects. Certain hon. Members, year after year, quite rightly bring forward their complaints against it. Succeeding régimes have sought to prove and alternative régimes have sought to convince us that it is more equitable than it appears to be.
However, this can be said: at no time has any criticism of the Aliens' Department which I have heard included the charge of wide-spread evasion. That is one charge which has never been laid against the administration in particular or in general, and it seems to me a point in its favour. Those who have the immigrants' cause at heart should support the belief that administration in this sense should be made more efficient and put on a proper accounting basis and not left to some ludicrous lottery which favours, not the honest people who want to come here, and have a right to do so, but those who cheat.

Mr. Roy Hattersley: I want to begin by conceding gladly the first point that was made by the right hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes). Hon. Members on this side of the Committee know very well that the gulf which divides them from some hon. Members opposite is not as great as might be supposed. The operative word is "some", because the gulf which divides Members on this side from hon. Members opposite is very wide indeed. Anyone who wants proof of that has only to remember as far back as the remarkable performance by the right hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Thorneycroft) in opening the debate.
He began by saying that during the last year debates on immigration had been marked by a conciliatory tone. I believe that is right, and I have played my own insignificant part in trying to bring it about. But I do not think that even the right hon. Gentleman himself would believe that the things he said today were intended to strike an uncontroversial note or to be conciliatory. Even making allowance for the right hon. Gentleman's normally ebullient, indeed, frenetic style, I think hon. Members on this side must have heard his remarks with the gloomy conclusion that his intentional purpose was to bring about a higher level of emotion and a more intense level of debate.
He made what was, in my view, an entirely distasteful reference to the three wives whom he suggested might be brought in or had been brought in by immigrants. That remark was indicative of the sort of campaign that some of us faced in the Midlands a year ago and the sort of campaign that has been going on in the Midlands ever since, but it was also indicative of something deeper than that, which I fear to be the right hon. Gentleman's real attitude.
He seems to be obsessed by one single word, and that is the word "colour". Let me take an example to demonstrate that. I believe entirely in the propriety and the desirability of the Ministry of Education's Circular No. 765. Some of my hon. Friends disagree, but I believe in the necessity for limiting the number of non-English-speaking children in any one class to 30 per cent. When the right hon. Member for Monmouth made his contribution in favour of that Circular he said he wanted to see the limitation of the number of coloured children in each class to 30 per cent. Those two things are very different, and they are entirely indicative of the great gulf that divides some hon. Gentlemen opposite from the overwhelming majority of hon. Members on this side.
I have admitted before in the House, and I admit again, that over the last three years my attitude to the legislation, the continuance of which we are considering tonight, has changed. Three years ago, I suffered from a tendency to oversimplify, and I was opposed to the Bill as it then stood. I remain opposed to many of the motives that prompted it, but I can see the necessity of its objects, and the necessity of the things it brought about. Those of us who admitted that we have changed our views on this crucial issue expected, in the nature of politics, that we would be required to eat some dirt. Some of us have had that diet thrust down us for many months. No one complains about that. If that was the only price that one had to pay for better race relations, it would be a price worth paying. But a more sinister note has crept into the Government's acceptance of some of the principles of the 1962 Commonwealth Immigrants Act, because the more the Government have moved

towards accepting it, the further the Opposition have retreated in the other direction, ensuring that the gulf dividing us is as wide as ever and that party political issues can still be wheeled out if at a future time they are regarded as expedient.
Any right hon. or hon. Gentleman who doubts the accuracy of that judgment has to do no more than read the remarkable speech made by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) in Birmingham on Sunday night. I say without any trepidation that I am always suspicious of the motives of Front Bench spokesmen whose specialisation is something different from home affairs but who choose to go to the heart of the Midlands, to Birmingham, to advance their views on tighter immigration control.
I am particularly sceptical of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West whose reputation in this House and in the country is based on, first, his overwhelming support of a free market economy; secondly, the absolute pursuit of that policy with a ruthless logic which is not compromised no matter how unpopular his advocacy may be; and, thirdly, his complete and absolute integrity; yet he comes to the city in England which is more labour-hungry, which is more in need of additional workers than any other place in the Commonwealth, and, as a representative of a free market economy, and with the ruthless logic that must support it, tells them that he wants to see immigration to this country substantially cut down.
That does not seem to fit into any of the things on which his reputation has been based. It does not seem to fit in with his reputation for ruthless logic, overwhelming authority, and overwhelming integrity. The figures he then quoted were notoriously bogus. They are specially selected to give the most damaging, the most critical, and I think the most hysterical, concept of the immigration problem in Birmingham.
I understand that the Minister of Labour is likely to take part in this debate. I do not know what his views are, or indeed what the Government's views are, on the economic issues of immigration, but from my point of view it seems that economically all the arguments are in favour of immigration being allowed to


extend, being allowed to expand, being allowed to continue in much more substantial numbers than at the moment. The economic arguments are all in favour of more immigration. They are all in favour of more labour and greater growth.
But I do not see the debate as an economic one. It was the right hon. Member for Monmouth who produced the remarkable economic analysis of the situation by talking about "the importation of additional male workers into this country." That is a phrase which typifies the right hon. Gentleman's attitude rather than mine. I believe that the debate is a social rather than an economic one.
I support the continuation of the 1962 Act, and I support the continuation of controls. Indeed, I support the extension of controls which I think should be applied a good deal more rigorously and stringently, because I believe it to be a social necessity. I say that because in the country there are people who do not look at immigration with the quiet, objective logic that should be possible in this House.
We know, and we should put it on record, that the immigrants cause virtually none of the problems about which we have heard this evening. They are not flooding into this country and sapping the National Insurance Fund.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: Would not my hon. Friend agree that if he takes that to its logical conclusion he is accepting the point that he made a little earlier, that the more we proceed in accepting this point of view the more we ate accepting the basic idea which the Opposition have put forward?

Mr. Hattersley: My hon. Friend seems to have arrived at the conclusion of the point I am making while I am only at the beginning of it. If he bears with me until I have made my point, I shall give way to him again if he wants to say that the gulf which divides me from hon. Gentlemen opposite is not as wide as I say it is.
I am saying that the social crises in our great cities have not been caused by immigrants. They are not poaching council houses. They are not causing the housing shortage and the housing crises which the right hon. Member for Hamp-

stead (Mr. Brooke) implied they were, and I would have thought that the right hon. Gentleman at least would have known that the Milner Holland Report says:
Immigrants are the victims, not the cause of the London housing crisis.
Immigrants are not going to flood the labour market. They are not going to imperil the solvency of the National Insurance Fund. They cause none of these problems, but one has to face the fact, not with approval but with reluctance, that many people believe that they do.
9.0 p.m.
If one is realistic one has to face the fact that people who are short of houses and who are afraid that hospital beds will not be available, and people who are worried about the education of their children, suspect that immigrants have some part in bringing about the unsatisfactory state of our social and welfare services. I believe that those who take an interest in immigration have three duties. The first is to do all that we can to demonstrate that immigrants have not caused these problems; the second is to allay the fears of those people who are misguided enough to believe it, and believe it genuinely with fear that occasionally amounts to terror. The third is to encourage the immigrants who are here and those amongst whom they live to build a genuinely, truly and freely integrated community, to such an extent and degree that the fears that turn to prejudice are eventually abandoned.
The critical issue by which we must all be tested as we vote in favour of extending the policy of immigration control is whether or not we genuinely want the immigrants to come here and want those who will come here in the future to be fully and completely integrated into the community. The arguments which exist —I admit they exist and, in a sense, I am glad that they exist—between myself and my hon. Friends are not about that fundamental problem. My hon. Friends and I may disagree about whether or not integration can best be brought about by the encouragement of additional immigrants or by a limitation on immigrants, but our intentions and objectives are to build a truly integrated, multi-racial society.
The right hon. Member for Monmouth is so concerned about integration that he rejects the word altogether. He produces words of his own, such as "adjustment", "alteration", and "change". We on this side of the Committee believe integration to be the justification for a policy which temporarily limits the numbers of immigrants—or, at least, I do. Some months ago I coined a phrase which, for all its inadequacy, remains the best I can do. I believe that integration without limitation is impossible; equally, I believe that limitation without integration is indefensible.
One of the things which must cause all of us regret is that in his opening speech the right hon. Member for Monmouth, representing the party opposite, cast integration aside with a few cursory remarks at the end. I believe that more money must be set aside for genuine and positive integration. I believe that those local authorities which, by design or mistake, discriminate in their housing regulations against immigrants must be stopped from discriminating. I believe that those schools which are so organised that immigrant children get less than adequate education must be reorganised. I believe that those building societies and insurance companies which, by design or mistake, discriminate against immigrants must be stopped from discriminating.
This is why, six months ago, I was one of those who particularly regretted that the Race Relations Bill missed an opportunity of putting immigrants on a parity with indigenous citizens in those fields where parity matters: housing and employment. I believe genuinely in integration. That is what this debate should be about. I believe that limitation can only be decent if it is regarded as a prop for a policy of integration. If we are discussing a limitation of entry for its own sake we are at the top of a slippery slope which may begin with some votes being won or lost and some temporary popularity, but which must end in the sort of racialism which I genuinely believe most hon. Members abhor and wish to avoid.

Sir George Sinclair: I go some way with the views expressed by the last speaker, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) on

a balanced policy of stricter controls as a condition of a proper adjustment. I use that phrase because I prefer it to the others that have been used. I believe that we need a far more vigorous policy on immigration. We need stricter control of entry and more positive measures to help immigrants already here. The Government's policy seems to me to be failing on both these counts.
First, on controls. The Home Secretary has spoken on several occasions about evasion. It is not good enough to promise, as the Government did in the Gracious Speech, to set up a special committee to review all the control procedures. The Home Secretary has indicated that legislation is unlikely during this Session. We should not wait for that legislation, I believe, before taking action. If the Home Secretary has the powers, he must use them. If he has not, he should seek them from the House without delay. Longer-term controls can be devised in the light of the findings of the special committee.
On the subject of control, I find myself also in agreement with the general proposition of my right hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Brooke). He wishes to avoid allowing a problem to develop in this country which might later get out of control. I have real sympathy with that view and I think that it was a basic idea behind the speech of the hon. Member for Sparkbrook.
There is a detailed matter of control on which we should have a change and we should have it immediately. Can we, in a comparatively much richer country, defend taking from poorer countries some of the skilled manpower which they desperately need? The Government's recent policy statement makes special provision for a continuing, though much reduced, flow of nurses, doctors, dentists and teachers—all from the Commonwealth. These are to be part of the annual quota of 8,500 voucher holders. In recent years, many of them have come here planning to stay, because they find the openings in their own country unattractive by comparison with prospects in Britain. We have no justification for attracting them to come and to stay here when their services are needed in their own country.
But there are others in these four groups—the majority, I believe—who


come here with the backing of their Governments, to gain additional experience and higher qualifications, and then return home. These, surely, should be treated as students, with the periods of their stay defined, or they could be treated on an equal footing with those who come here for industrial experience and who are catered for in paragraph 18 of the White Paper. Under either of these schemes, they should be welcomed, as students have been welcomed and should continue to be welcomed. But they should be outside the quota and the voucher system, which is for true immigrants. So much for controls.
The Government's failure on the other side of the immigration policy is, I believe, serious. In the measures set out in the White Paper to help immigrants adjust themselves to life in Britain, they have shown a dismal lack of imagination and leadership. It is here that they have lost a great opportunity to show in action that they mean what they say. In their statement of policy, they failed to give any impression of practical good will. They give no resolute lead to public opinion. The hon. Member for Spark-brook stressed the importance of giving a lead to public opinion and making the facts known. Nor do they propose an effective programme of national measures to help. They seem to wish to contract out of direct responsibility and to leave the initiative largely to local authorities and voluntary bodies.
This is surely far too important a social problem—for us and our children, for the immigrants themselves, for everyone in Britain and for our relations with the outside world—to be treated in this way.
The central machinery of Government for dealing with this matter is not nearly strong enough. I believe that the Junior Minister charged with this responsibility has done a good job, but it is really not enough to have him working part-time in a Ministry which should have most of its attention concerned with other affairs. The responsibility should surely be in a Ministry concerned, in the normal course of its duties, with immigration. And the Minister responsible should be supported by a stronger staff, including regional officers directly responsible to

his Ministry, and he should have greatly increased funds at his disposal.
I now wish to deal with two main points; housing and employment. Housing is only one of the keys of adjustment. For reasons which have been vividly described in the House of Commons, in the Press and in the B.B.C.'s helpful series "Colour in Britain" we know that immigrants are often forced to settle—

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Harold Lever): Order. Detailed consideration of the integration of Commonwealth immigrants is not in order, although passing reference to it may be made. The hon. Gentleman has gone into this question already in rather greater detail than is permissible, but he must not pursue this point in any greater detail.

Sir G. Sinclair: That Ruling fills me with some dismay, Mr. Lever, in view of the very wide range of all the speeches which have preceded mine in the discussion of the measures of integration. I agree with previous speakers that this is one of the things that we are called upon to discuss in this debate because it is on the absorptive capacity of the country and the measures for adjustment and integration that we must base our outlook on the controls which we think are necessary. However, I will try to keep as far as I may within your Ruling.
As I was saying, it is for the reasons which have been described in Parliament, and which are known to many of us, that people have been forced to live in dilapidated, old urban centres where I am sure they have, unwillingly and often at high cost, been forced to form self-segregating groups. This is a poor basis for adjustment.
In such groups, whether coloured or not, there has always been resentment against the world outside; and outside there has usually been a reaction of hostility. The formation of self-segregating groups is taking place in this country today. If this process is allowed to continue and develop, it will, at best, slow down the process of adjustment and, at worst, lead to the violent explosions of resentment of which Britain has had only a taste but which can be seen in the appalling communal clashes in the vastly


different and far more difficult situation in the United States. In the White Paper, the Government have deliberately avoided the issue of a national policy for tackling the worst housing problems of immigrants, and this is the point, Mr. Lever, that I was trying to make in describing these conditions.
9.15 p.m.
I believe that what is required is that the Government, basing themselves on the precedent of the developed areas, should designate certain areas of special housing need. Such an arrangement is recommended in the Milner Holland Report. They should, then, set up the machinery for tackling the housing problems of the various local authorities in the area, if necessary on a regional basis. For this task, they should be prepared to grant special assistance, as they do for development areas.
And now I come to employment. What brought most Commonwealth immigrants to Britain? It was opportunities for employment—employment that would give them and their families a better future. Most immigrants achieve this objective soon after they arrive, and look forward to prospects of steady employment for years ahead. This, in itself, brings a sense of security. This is stage one, and its results are reassuring, but what about stage two? What about the prospects of getting ahead, of securing posts demanding higher skills and the exercise of responsibility? What about promotion, and access to training schemes? What about apprenticeships? What about—

The Temporary Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman must be guided by the principle I laid down for him. Of course I appreciate the relevance of what he says, and that is why passing reference is allowed to it, but it is relevant to the balance of payments and innumerable other subjects which cannot be examined in detail, and be in order, in this debate.

Sir G. Sinclair: These are problems that I believe we should deal with now though I must not seek to deal with them any more in this debate. But, if we do not deal with them now, we shall be handing these employment problems on as a legacy of bitterness to our own children.
Finally, I would ask the Home Secretary to look again at what I can fairly describe as the miserable White Paper of last August. I would ask him to take far more effective measures to check widespread evasion of controls and to reduce the inflow of new arrivals. I would ask him to balance these measures by giving the country a positive and vigorous lead in the steps required to help the immigrants who are already here to take a full part in the life of Britain. In particular, I would ask him to give the local authorities and the voluntary bodies far more generous financial support to help them carry out a clear-cut national policy.

Mr. Michael Foot: The right hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Brooke) commented on the fact that hon. Members might have different views on the subject according to the number of immigrants they might have in their constituencies, and I understand the point. I come from a constituency which has very few Commonwealth immigrants, and I certainly do not have the knowledge of the problem of, for example, my hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, East (Mr. Freeson) who has spoken with such knowledge on the matter—and with such courage, in my belief—and to whom I look forward to hearing in this debate. Therefore, I cannot speak with close individual knowledge of the matter.
However, I think that this is an issue on which all of us must give our views, or be prepared to give our views, whatever may be the particular situation in our own constituencies, because I believe that it affects not only the question of immigration to this country but the relationships of this country with Commonwealth countries and many other countries throughout the world.
Moreover, although in my own constituency we have very few Commonwealth immigrants, it is a constituency that has absorbed many immigrants in the past. Some generations ago in my constituency in Ebbw Vale and Tredegar there were very bitter battles about Irish immigration. We ought to put these things into perspective. No one would say today that Irish immigration in that part of the world did not contribute to the welfare of our society there. The assimilation has taken place. It is a justifiable proposition that every wave of


immigration we have had into this country has benefited this country. The only people who can possibly protest against that proposition are the Celts who were driven into Wales, into Cornwall and into parts of Scotland. I do not see how we Anglo-Norman-Saxons can protest at that for what a lot of mongrels we are, including many on the Front Bench. [An HON. MEMBER: "Integrated?"] Some of them are not yet integrated, so far as I see.
We should try to put the question of immigration into historical perspective. If we did that we might reach wiser conclusions. I do not think any hon. or right hon. Member on the benches opposite who has spoken can claim to have done so. Hon. Members opposite who have spoken in this debate have done so with consistent meanness. I dare say that a few other hon. Members opposite will speak in different tone because we have hear them speak before on this subject, but almost every speech made from the opposite side of the Committee today has been solely concerned about how to get the controls fiercer and tighter and to make sure that no one should slip through who is not entitled to slip through. Everything has been considered from that point of view.
I have listened to the whole debate, but I do not think a single word has been said by hon. Members opposite about the injustice imposed on immigrants, whether they are immigrants already here or those who want to come here, by the operation of the Commonwealth Immigration Act, 1962. My view of that Act has not changed since 1962. When it was introduced I thought it a detestable Measure. It was one which I hoped we would get rid of as swiftly as possible. I said last year that I thought it a detestable Measure and I still think it a detestable Measure, in some ways even more detestable because of the further measures this Government have introduced.
My first objection to the White Paper is that it is utterly disingenuous. For example, in paragraph 3 the Government talk about the reasons for the introduction of the original Measure and say that:
It was with even greater reluctance that control over immigration from the Commonwealth was introduced in 1962.
That is supposed to be referring to the House of Commons and the country as a whole, but that is not what happened. Talk about rewriting history!
Everyone in this House at that time remembers what occurred over that Measure. Some of the most notable debates which have taken place since I have been a Member occurred at that time. The Labour Party bitterly attacked the Measure on moral grounds, economic grounds and every other ground. A most formidable attack on the whole idea and concept of the Measure was mounted by the Labour Opposition at that time. If the Government have changed their mind on the subject—as they have—it would be much better for them to try to explain why they have changed their mind than to say that it was with even greater reluctance that the Measure was introduced in 1962.
The present Government were bitterly opposed to the Act. The present Opposition who introduced the Measure did not do so with such reluctance in 1962. Some of them may have shown some reluctance, but others eagerly wanted the Measure. Do not let us rewrite history and say that such was the case when it was not the case. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) said quite honestly that he has changed his mind on the Measure. It would be much better for the Government to say that they have changed their minds, not only about the main Act but in recent months, and that it made them introduce the White Paper. They should explain the reason for the change.
If they had done that, they would be in a stronger moral position. They might have been in a weaker argumentative position, because if they had tried to state the detailed facts upon which they have changed their minds the facts might not have stood up to analysis. The facts are not in the White Paper as to why they have changed their minds. The details are not there. As my hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, East has often remarked, the detailed facts on which the change of mind has taken place have never been given to us.
Therefore, I think that the Government, particularly when they were dealing with such a sensitive matter as this, particularly when they were dealing with a matter in which the moral credit of the Labour Party was so deeply involved, should have gone into much greater detail as to why they have changed their mind.
They certainly should not try to pretend that they have not changed their mind, because all the world knows that they have.
Part of my complaint against what the Government are doing is that by pretending that they have not changed their minds and by introducing such phrases as I have read they have encouraged a cynicism about the whole situation—and a dangerous cynicism, not merely about politics generally but in particular amongst immigrants. I do not think that my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench yet fully understand how deep is the offence to multitudes of immigrants in this country at the introduction of this White Paper and how bitter is their feeling. Compliments are often paid to them for the service they do to our economy. Everybody knows that. It is very insulting to many of them to be told, "We do not mind you coming in, but we do not want many more, you know". That is what the White Paper said. Therefore, I hope that the Government will better understand what is the feeling throughout the country and in many sections of the Labour Party on this subject, particularly in view of what we said in the past. Therefore, when the Government on a matter of this nature decide to change their mind, they should say so much more openly.
I come now to what I referred to earlier, what I thought was the meanness of the approach of many hon. Members opposite and some of the implications of the White Paper, too, in dealing with this subject. Hon. Members opposite spoke as if the sole question was how to ensure that the controls work. What about the effects on individuals? I quote one case tonight. I do not say that there are many cases like it, but I should have thought that there are quite a number. I could quote many other letters I have had dealing with individual cases. I quote this one because I happened to receive it this morning and because I think it illustrates the grievous individual injustices which are imposed by this Act and by the further operation of the White Paper as it has been applied by the Government already.
I shall not give the name of the person concerned. When I have quoted the letter I will send it to the Government in the

hope that they will do something about this individual case. This case illustrates the whole situation. It is a letter from somebody in Kent:
My wife comes from Jamaica and her father died recently leaving her mother virtually destitute except for the small amount earned by a second daughter, unmarried, who has never left home. The only way to save my mother-in-law is for her to come here and live with us, and I have been battling for over six months to get her over here. I have established that my mother-in-law can gain entry to this country as a dependent relative, but obviously she cannot leave behind her other daughter who has always lived with her. This daughter has no one else to turn to and would be left entirely on her own if her mother came to this country. I think you can imagine the heartache and misery that this would cause. So I have been trying to get permisson for my sister-in-law to come to this country with her mother, and this is where officialdom has got me beaten. The British High Commission in Jamaica told my sister-in-law that she could not qualify as a dependent relative and would have to produce an employment voucher. So I then arranged for a firm to offer her employment and apply for a voucher on her behalf. Back came a reply saying that there would be a long delay, which is no help because with every week that passes my mother-in-law's situation becomes more difficult.
He then wrote a letter, which was passed to the Ministry of Labour. I have the reply from the Ministry of Labour on this subject. It says:
Our letter of the 26th October, which you enclosed with your letter, was addressed to"—
a certain firm—
who applied for the voucher for"—
a certain person—
to whom they have offered employment. I am sure you will understand that in an application of this kind the employer is the principal and we cannot discuss the case with anyone else. I would remind you however that the application has not been rejected. All we have said is that because of the further restriction on immigration announced on 2nd August and the number of earlier applications already held, this application cannot be considered at present.
9.30 p.m.
That is the Government's policy in operation. I do not know whether any hon. Member would like to defend that process. I remember many of the protests against Russian behaviour that we had at one time because of their severance of families. We are engaged in it, too, and engaged in it on an extending scale. I would like to see the process reversed. The Home Secretary said three


out of four people coming in now are dependants. I hope that the Government will look at all cases of dependants with the utmost generosity and humanity, and I hope that they will so look at this case and all similar cases. It would be some mitigation of the offence caused by the White Paper.
But that is not the major offence that the White Paper has caused. The reason why the White Paper is so bitterly detested by immigrants and those who uphold their cause is that it involves an element of colour discrimination. That is the fact of the matter. Members of the Government are in no position to counter this argument. The fact is that the form of control introduced by the White Paper means that the vast majority of the people affected by it are those who come from what is called the new Commonwealth.
We are told in the first paragraph of the White Paper:
This policy has two aspects: one relating to control on the entry of immigrants so that it does not outrun Britain's capacity to absorb them.
But that is not the basis on which the Government's Measure is drawn up. We can disprove their claim by citing the case of the Irish. If one says that one will draw up a White Paper based on how many people should be allowed into the country, one has to take into account the number of immigrants coming from Ireland. It is no good saying to me that I must not use that argument to prove that it is a colour Bill, because that is precisely the argument which was used by many of the spokesmen of the Labour Party Front Bench when the Measure was introduced.
When the Commonwealth Immigration Act, 1962, was introduced one of the principal charges of the Labour Party against it was that it involved colour discrimination, and the way it was proved and driven home was by saying that if one wanted to remove the element of colour discrimination one must base it solely on principles and apply the Measure to the Irish. I am not for a moment arguing that we should apply it to the Irish, that we should stop Irish people coming into this country. That would be an utterly abhorrent thing to do. Particularly recalling the history of this country, it would be a great depriva-

tion to ourselves to stop Irishmen coming in, quite apart from the economic argument. But if it is overwhelmingly the case that we must not stop the Irish coming in because of these principles, the same argument applies to Commonwealth citizens. The logic of refusing to apply this abhorrent doctrine to stop the Irish coming into the country is that we must not stop Commonwealth citizens coming in. If we choose to say that we will stop Commonwealth citizens coming in, and everyone knows that the bulk of those who will be stopped are people with coloured skins, we must not be surprised if people say that we are applying a colour bar, and we must not be surprised particularly when that was precisely the charge the leaders of the Labour Party made against the Conservative Party when it introduced the Measure in 1962.
I am bitterly opposed to any form of legislation, particularly legislation introduced by a Labour Government, which involves an element of colour bar. It is an appalling thing to have happened. I want to see us returning as swiftly as possible to a situation where we wipe away this stain on the reputation of the Labour movement.
There have been some moves in a better direction, contrary to what has been said by hon. Members opposite. I greatly welcome the Government's decision about deportations. I am very glad that they are not proceeding with individual legislation to deal with this subject and that they now propose to examine the whole matter coolly and intelligently to try to draw up a humane method so that we shall take the arbitrary powers from the Home Office and ensure that Commonwealth citizens and foreigners are treated in a civilised manner in this respect.
That is a departure from what was said in the White Paper, but, as I do not like the White Paper, I welcome the departure and I would have thought that every civilised person would rejoice in it. That is what I mean by the meanness of hon. Members opposite, because they have pounced on this not because of its humanity, but because, they say, it is a departure from the strictness of the controls. I welcome the concession and I accept it in the spirit in which I trust it is given.
I believe that it has been given because the Government have had second thoughts. They have listened to representations and they now wish to modify the policy which they introduced last August. I believe that the White Paper was not introduced after all the careful study we were told about, but in an almost hysterical frame of mind. I hope that the Government are now approaching the matter in a cooler spirit. The more they do so, the more they will return to the principles which the Labour Party enunciated in 1962. Do not let them forget that this Act which they are asking us to continue is itself a temporary Measure. Nobody said that we would have a permanent system of dealing with Commonwealth immigrants. Most people said that the Act was a grave departure from our traditions. I believe that it was a grave departure also from our Commonwealth traditions.
I never expected to see the day when I would hear one of the greatest friends of this country, the former Prime Minister and the present Leader of the Opposition in Jamaica, Mr. Manley, one of the world's great Democratic Socialists, bittterly attack a Labour Government on this kind of subject almost as fiercely as he attacked the Conservative Government. I look forward to the day when men like him, who are this country's best friends in the world and the best friends of the Labour movement throughout the world, will be grateful because we have wiped this Measure from the Statute Book altogether.
I do not say that it can be done immediately, although I would like to see it done immediately, and if it were the processes of integration would be stepped up. If we got rid of this Act, we would get quicker and not slower reaction on the other matters. But I hope that the Government will understand that many of us still regard the Commonwealth Immigrants Act as a detestable Measure and a temporary Measure and that some of us will go on fighting until we have restored the principles on which the Labour Party stood when the Act was introduced, principles based on an absolute respect for racial equality and the refusal to accept any form of racial discrimination.
If we in this country, which is better qualified to say this than most others,

take our stand on that principle, so far from being afraid that what has happened in the United States or in Africa will spread here, we may be able to use our influence to extend civilised ideas of racial equality to those other continents. If we cannot solve the problem and if we cannot face the problem of racial integration, where can it be faced? Many of us regard what the Government have done as a painful and humiliating retreat from our best principles and we shall be working as best we can to see those principles re-established brightly in the future.

Mr. John Farr: I hope that the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) will forgive me if I do not comment too closely on his argument. Much of his phraseology when referring to what he called the meanness of hon. Members was not conducive to the right sort of spirit in which the debate should be conducted. I think that most hon. Members on this side of the Committee and quite a few hon. Members opposite are earnestly striving, regardless of party line or the colours of the skins of the immigrants, to solve this problem in the best way we know and sincerely.
When one talks of the difference in the policies of the two parties there is not a great deal of difference in the policies of the two Front Benches at the moment. When we refer to immigrants we do not concern ourselves so much with the colour of their skins. Most of those with whom we are dealing happen to be black, but whether they are black or white, we must still face the severe overcrowding problems in schools and the accommodation difficulties which meet these newcomers to our country.
In my constituency we have very few coloured immigrants indeed although we happen to be a large dormitory area for some of the biggest cities in the country. Occasionally it is possible that those who are not concerned, constituency-wise, with the day-to-day problem, can cast a fresh line of thought upon the subject. Sometimes, in other words, it is possible not to see the wood for the trees. Since the Commonwealth Immigrants Act, 1962, one has watched the door to Commonwealth immigration slowly closing. It began with the 1962 Act which gave the door a gentle push towards closure. The White Paper produced in August by the


Government gave the door a further push and made it more difficult for immigrants to enter the country.
I believe most sincerely, and without any reference to the opinions held by my Front Bench, that it is our duty to advocate complete closure of this door until such time as those immigrants who are with us can be absorbed properly. I do not like to use the word "integrate"—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why not, what is wrong with it?"]—until they can be accepted within the limits of our society, so that they can live in the decency to which I think anyone who is a citizen of this country is entitled. Unless that course is taken we will fairly soon have a partial or almost complete breakdown of the social services in some parts of the country.

Mr. Norman Buchan: I was wondering why the word "integration" was so offensive to the hon. Gentleman and, secondly, why he rejects our accusation of meanness, when his Front Bench speaker, the right hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Thorneycroft) refers to "coloureds", and people coming in with three wives, and thirdly just when does he determine when people are integrated? I suspect that if it is left to Members opposite it would never happen.

Mr. Farr: I am quite sure that the hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity of speaking and giving his views. I merely refer to the fact that this legislation, of which we are considering the renewal, concerns coloured immigrants and what is the point of trying to hide the issue? Why not admit it? Several hon. Members opposite were a bit touchy when my right hon. Friend referred to the case of immigrants with more than one wife. I believe that my right hon. Friend was possibly referring to one or two instances which have been investigated recently, whereby this has been a method when people holding work permits here were able to get more than one wife in and more than one family of children.

Mr. George Thomas: I think that it is very important to make it quite clear that we have no official knowledge at all that such a practice has been followed.

Mr. Farr: I will continue with what I was saying about the conditions which

are developing in certain parts of the country already. Hon. Members may have read one of the Sunday newspapers, in which a correspondent talks about the very difficult conditions which are already being experienced in the Borough of Lambeth not far from here. This Press article described the intolerable conditions in which many thousands of immigrants were living in Lambeth.
9.45 p.m.
We in the House of Commons, whatever our party, have a duty to our constituents, black or white, who are already here, to make certain that they live in conditions which are worthy of people who live in this country before we allow thousands upon thousands more to come in annually, adding to the overcrowding, the squalor and the incredible conditions of horror in which many of them live today.
When one is aware of these difficult conditions, which already exist in parts of the country, of the rate at which by natural regeneration our own indigenous population is expanding and aware, too, of the vast plans for redeployment of many aspects of industry—the coal mines, agriculture and commerce—which will require the provision of many more new jobs for those who become redundant, one must surely realise that the day has come for the flow of immigrants to be halted. In closing this door, we would have nothing whatever of which to be ashamed.
Since the war, when we were faced with a stupendous problem of catering for our own needs after the crippling days of 1939 to 1945, what other country with a population comparable to ours has accepted a million immigrants from the Commonwealth? Probably some hon. Members, on both sides, would prefer an uninterrupted or fairly strong flow of immigrants to continue because they are rightly concerned with the conditions in which many members of our coloured Commonwealth live, particularly in some of the Caribbean countries, where they live in extreme poverty. Even when they come here, however, many of them continue to live in conditions of similar squalor and filth.
I believe that our best course of action is not to allow tens of thousands of immigrants to come here but rather that


through the Department of Overseas Development we should channel real assistance in cash and technical aid to some of those countries, perhaps especially in the Caribbean area, to help them to establish new industries in their home territories, to give them work at home, which is what they would all prefer, instead of coming to this country and to our strange climate. We should make a real effort to provide work and jobs for them in their own homeland.
It appears to be a point of amusement to certain hon. Members opposite that I make this suggestion, but I was in Jamaica and the Caribbean area a year ago with a delegation. We were fortunate enough to go round to a number of factories which had been established by British capital in Jamaica. We visited, for example, a cigarette factory employing several hundred people, a china factory and quite a number of other recently-established factories around the city of Kingston—

The Chairman: It is in order for the hon. Gentleman to refer to these matters, but I do not think that he can develop them on this occasion.

Mr. Farr: I beg your pardon, Sir Samuel. I was pointing out that all the coloured people in Jamaica to whom I spoke and a good many whom I met in this country would prefer to work at home, just as we in this country would prefer to remain in our own homeland. It is only because they have to go abroad to work that they come to this country in the first place. I was going to suggest that possibly it would be of great interest to the Committee to learn what projects the Minister of Overseas Development has for stimulating the export of capital in this way.
I should like to summarise what I believe the Government's course should be. First, I believe that the door which has been steadily closing since 1962 should be shut today until such time as those who are here can be assimilated and permitted to live in decent conditions. It is a duty which we owe to all those who are already here to make the conditions such that we should be proud to speak of them.
Secondly, I understand that it has been estimated that, even if the door were

closed to work permit holders, many hundreds of thousands of dependants would still be permitted to enter the country under the existing regulations. I see the Joint Under-Secretary of State nodding his head. The figure which I have heard, although I have no substantiation of it, is that about 500,000 relatives would be entitled to enter this country. But whatever the figure, I believe that the time has come when immigrants' relatives and dependants should be far more strictly controlled.
In the interest of those who are already here as well as of those who are to come, there should be no question of a man bringing with him more than his wife and dependent children under 16. A firm indication should be given to an immigrant who wanted to bring a relative with him that if he wished to live with his mother, grandmother, wife's aunt or whoever else is dependent on him that would be more than this country could absorb and that he and his family should go back to the country from which they originated. An unmarried immigrant who is already here should either go home to marry or marry a girl who is here, but he should not be permitted to import a person for that purpose.
Voluntary repatriation of immigrants should be encouraged and our powers of deportation should be strengthened. I believe most sincerely that if this warning is not heeded by Her Majesty's Government today we shall all wish in five years' time that in 1965 sincere and firm action had been taken to close the door.

Dr. Shirley Summerskill: The Committee has been concerned mainly with the general principles of the Act. I should like to refer specifically to the part of Section 2 which deals with the power of an immigration officer to refuse permission to a person to come into this country on the advice of a medical inspector or a duly qualified medical practioner if he is suffering from a mental disorder or if it is, as the Act says,
otherwise undesirable for medical reasons that he should be admitted".
I feel that that is a fallacious attempt to reduce the disease that we find among immigrants, because it has been conclusively shown that disease among immigrants is mainly contracted after they have arrived and is not brought by them to this country. They are more likely to


contract disease because they are living in overcrowded conditions and tend to keep together, as do any immigrants when they first arrive.
It is estimated that 50 per cent. of the immigrants in Bradford who have tuberculosis have contracted it here. I have particular knowledge of that, because there is an overflow of tubercular patients from Bradford hospitals into the hospitals of my own constituency of Halifax.
The solution to the problem lies not in opposing their entry, as the Act does, but in the Government White Paper which lays down extremely good proposals for limiting the disease that might arise among immigrants once they have arrived here.
Then the question arises, what is the principle for repatriating certain immigrants after a health check on arrival in this country? Why are they sent home from the port of arrival if they are found to have a disease? Is it to safeguard the public from Commonwealth diseases which are supposed to be imported? Surely that can be done by treating them straight away in Britain when they arrive.
If they are sent home, will they necessarily be treated when they get there, because many of the countries from which they come have completely inadequate medical services? Are we sending them home to avoid undue stress being laid on our National Health Service? I doubt that, considering that it is only a very small proportion of immigrants who are repatriated on grounds of disease, and I am sure that our National Health Service of which we boast can easily take in the extra people who present themselves with a disease when they arrive here.
Great power is vested in the immigration officers and in one doctor only to refuse admission to immigrants. He does not have to be a specially qualified doctor, He can be either a medical inspector or one general practitioner. There is no word in the Act as to how extensive the examination is supposed to be, and it is quire clear that in the average conditions of an airport or seaport the medical examination must be extremely limited and very hasty. We know, for example, that. London Airport has only one X-ray machine, or it did until recently, and there are certainly not X-ray facilities at

all our air and seaports. It is a purely arbitrary decision, therefore, on the part of the immigration officer and on the advice of one doctor whether someone should be allowed entry or sent home.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: In making that last point, is the hon. Lady suggesting that because of the inadequate facilities and the rushed examination, people who are ill get through, or that people who are not ill but who are supposed officially to be ill are refused admission?

Dr. Summerskill: I am trying to illustrate that the Act is inconsistent and that people who are ill are getting through, whereas the Act is designed to prevent them getting through. It is not being carried out as it should be, assuming that one accepts that the Act is a good one in these circumstances.
Further, it makes no attempt to decide what diseases are to be refused admission and what diseases are to be accepted into the country. For instance, it states specifically that anyone suffering from a mental disorder can be refused admission. That is an extremely vague term, and the general practitioner who sees these people is not even a qualified psychiatrist. Mental disorder can range from the mild to the very severe, from the curable to the incurable, and it is wrong that this sort of condition should be diagnosed—

It being Ten o'clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.

Committee report Progress.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,

That the Proceedings on the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. Grey.]

Orders of the Day — EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL

Again considered in Committee.

Question again proposed, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule.

Dr. Summerskill: As I was saying, mental diseases can range from the mild to the severe, and it is impossible for them to be diagnosed hastily at an airport or seaport.
Secondly, a person can be refused admission on the ground that
it is undesirable for medical reasons that he should be admitted.
Here again the wording is completely vague. What are medical reasons? Where does one draw the line between medical reasons which might mean a severe case of T.B., and at the other extreme a mild early case of T.B. If somebody is all at the port, apparently he can be refused admission, but if the disease is diagnosed three days later when he has reached, say, Halifax, he is allowed to stay in the country and be treated.
Some diseases are curable, and some are completely incurable. Some are contagious, and some are not. There is nothing in the Act to say which diseases mean a person is refused entry and which mean he may be permitted to enter. Where does one draw the line between somebody who might he crippled with arthritis, and is therefore presumably incapable of doing a full day's work and helping our economy, and somebody who may have leukaemia or some other disabling type of disease?
What is the extent of the health check which is to be given under this Act? As I have said, until recently there was only one X-ray apparatus at London Airport. This was used only if the doctor in charge advised its use and if he thought there was a possible case of T.B. There is no certain way of telling whether a person has T.B. unless he is X-rayed. The fact that there was no compulsory chest X-ray meant that the machine was almost useless, and that the majority of diseases went through undetected.
In my view this part of the Bill is impossible to enforce properly and it results in the majority of the work that should be done at the port being done by general practitioners and local authorities when the immigrants reach their towns. It is far more difficult to track down the cases of T.B. that have got through once the immigrants are living in their homes and mixing with the community. It is much easier to pick them out when they come into the country.
What is the solution? In my view this part of the Act should be completely deleted. Nobody who arrives in this

country as an immigrant and who suffers from any illness should be sent home. It seems an inhuman way to carry on the practice of medicine, which should know no boundaries of geography or nationality. Most of the countries from which these immigrants come have formerly been under British control for many years, and if their medical facilities are inadequate we have a certain moral responsibility to treat the people coming from them.
As an immediate step and an alternative to this part of the Act I suggest that the Minister of Health should make it compulsory for every immigrant to have a full health examination at the port of entry, together with a compulsory chest X-ray. I cannot understand why the Government are so hesitant about introducing this procedure. They seem to think that it is an insult to an immigrant to say that he must have a health check and an X-ray. They seem to think that it is something to be regarded as undesirable, whereas it is for the immigrant's benefit.
The Minister of Health has asked general practitioners to look out for disease among immigrants. How can a busy family doctor keep an eye on every immigrant on his list, and keep a check on them all? This should have been done when the immigrant came into the country. As well as compulsory chest X-rays when immigrants arrive, annual X-rays should be carried out in the towns where they are living. At the airports there should not just be one general practitioner but a team of doctors, with facilities for full medical examination.
If anybody is found to be suffering from a disease, whether it be varicose veins, chickenpox or something more severe, such as venereal disease or tuberculosis, he should be treated straight away, and if he refuses treatment it should be made compulsory. This should apply to mental as well as physical illness. Surely our National Health Service should be able to cope with these people, instead of weakly turning them away at the port of entry.
Those are the short-term measures which I suggest should take the place of this part of the Act. The long-term aim should be to extend our National Health Service so that it is a service for the Commonwealth as a whole and not just for


Britain. We should help these countries to develop their own medical services. When we do that we can implement that part of the Government White Paper which recommends that these medical tests should be carried out in the countries of origin. Obviously this can be done only when the countries of origin have the necessary facilities. At the moment they have not.
The Government can start on this by making a survey of requirements in Commonwealth countries to a far greater extent than Lord Mountbatten's Commission did, in order to assist them financially and materially, as well as with personnel. I am in favour of sending our doctors to those countries and of their doctors coming to this country, so that we have an exchange system between the Commonwealth and Britain. Immigrant doctors usually return to their countries of origin later on.
I have attempted to illustrate the inhumanity of allowing immigrants to come here from their homes and then sending them back for a reason for which they are not responsible, namely, ill health. In a 3peech reported yesterday, the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) advocated the repatriation of immigrants whom he vaguely labelled as unassimilable. Some of us may consider that he is unassimilable on his own Front Bench—but he has a part to play, like the rest of us. It seems wrong that people of whom I speak should he declared by this Act to be unassimilable through no fault of their own. This part of the Act is inhuman and illiberal.

Mr. David Steel: I cannot, I regret, follow the hon. Lady the Member for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill) into her useful but specialised discussion of health checks for immigrants. The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) said that he did not have many Commonwealth immigrants in this constituency. I have to say the same about mine. Moreover, the point was recently made about my party that it is very easy for the members of the Liberal Party to take a stand against the Government on the issue of immigration, because neither I nor any of my hon. or right hon. Friends repre-

sent constituencies where this is a serious problem.
This is a legitimate argument, but I would point out that at my party conference this year over 1,000 delegates and candidates from constituencies all over the country, including areas where this is a problem, came out unanimously against the Government's proposals. In the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe), who claims that his cold is worse than mine, I should like to put our views this evening on this proposal.
The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale berated the Government for having changed their minds about the Act of 1962. If that is all they have done, there would not be so much to oppose, but they have, of course, gone much further than simply changing their minds. They are now advocating a system of much tighter controls than was laid down in the 1962 Act. When the hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) commented that the gulf between him and some of the members of the Conservative Party remained as wide as it had ever been, because every time the Labour Party moved towards the stand taken by the Conservative Party, the Conservative Party then retreated, it seemed to me that he did not follow up the logic of this observation—that it is highly dangerous for him and other members of the Labour Party to move towards, and in fact to exceed, the demands which were previously made by the Conservative Party.
There are two respects in which the Government's proposals are more illiberal than those previously made. One of the reasons that the members of the Liberal Party were opposed to the Bill when it was before the House in 1961 was the powers it gave to the Home Secretary to empower immigration officers to refuse entry with no right of appeal. But the Government's White Paper wanted to extend this to the power to deport immigrants who are already here and who would not be here for more than six months—again without trial, without charge and without reference to any appropriate tribunal.
In the debate in November, 1961, my hon. Friend the Member for Devon, North, asked a question which was not


answered at the time and I should be grateful if it could be answered by this Government. He asked if it was not a fact that:
… during the war there were aliens tribunals, staffed by lawyers of considerable experience, who decided precisely this question of whether an immigration officer was justified in refusing entry to an alien? If it was possible to operate that during the very difficult period of war time, why is it impossible to do it with Commonwealth immigrants now?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th November, 1961; Vol. 649, c. 703.]
I would suggest that an answer might be given to this question, without resort to the explanation that a committee has been appointed to look into the matter.
Indeed, I am surprised that the Government have not been prepared to take fairly immediate action on this, since the present two Law Officers of the Crown were strongly opposed to this aspect of the 1962 Act. The present Attorney-General described the failure to provide for a system of appeal as "an outrageous refusal of an elementary right". The present Solicitor-General said of the Act that it was an extreme case of putting the individual at the absolute mercy of the official without redress or appeal. I presume that they still hold to those views.
10.15 p.m.
I understand that the Minister of Labour will intervene later. I suggest that it might be useful in the issuing of vouchers under the existing Act if Ministry of Labour officials were located in the countries of origin and be empowered to issue vouchers. At present some Commonwealth countries are experiencing delays of up to six months on the issuing of vouchers.
We cannot go into detail on the social programme which the Government wish to implement to ensure the integration of Commonwealth immigrants, but I agree with the suggestion of the hon. Lady the Member for Hitchin (Mrs. Shirley Williams) that immigrants should be met by people who are conversant in their languages at the points of entry. This is done successfully by the Netherlands Government and it is very much needed here.
To give an example, when I came back recently in an aeroplane from Hong

Kong there were in the 'plane a few immigrants. They passed through immigration control—as they had work permits; I understand that they were coming here to work in a Chinese restaurant—as quickly as I passed through Customs. However, when they got to the outer hall of the airport they did not know what to do next. They had the address and telephone number of their prospective employer but they had no idea how to use the S.T.D. dialling system. They were not helped by the fact that half the telephones were out of order. It is sometimes difficult for us to use telephones, particularly when many of them are out of order, so it must be doubly difficult for newcomers.
This is the sort of small problem which may seem trivial to us but which is a serious obstacle to someone arriving here and finding himself even unable to get in touch with his prospective employer. It would be a simple matter for, say, welfare officers to assist these people.

Mr. Buck: I have great sympathy with the point the hon. Gentleman is making, but, without going into the matter in detail, would he not agree that there might be a case for saying that people given labour permits to come here should have a basic knowledge of the English language; that is, before being given their vouchers?

Mr. Steel: There was no lack of knowledge of English in the case I have described. I defy anyone to read and understand the instructions for using an S.T.D. coin box if that person is not over-familiar with the English telephone system. For many people born in this country the instructions are difficult enough.
The second criticism which my party has of the Government is their statement in paragraph 15 of the White Paper:
It has … been decided that, with effect from 2nd August … vouchers shall be 8,500 per year. …
It goes on to say that 1,000 of those vouchers will be reserved for the Maltese, who appear now to be moving into a privileged category, almost akin to that of aliens. That means that for the rest of the Commonwealth the figure will be 7,500 per year. The paragraph merely states:
It has … been decided …".


On what basis has it been decided that this is to be the magic figure? Is this the figure which was recommended in the Mountbatten Report? One can only assume that, as the Mountbatten Report has not been published, this is not the figure which it recommended—otherwise why was it not used as the basis of the Government's decision? Was the decision taken on grounds of economics? I suggest that this cannot be the reason because we find in the National Plan a forecast that we will be 200,000 workers short by 1970. We also find in the speech which the First Secretary made last March in Sheffield these words:
It is absolutely mad, at a time when our labour force is allegedly over-used and when ou- new force is going to rise but slightly, that we should be talking about limiting the number of people who can be used. This country needs new people coming in to share in the work as much as we have ever needed it.
It therefore seems that the arguments in favour of the figure of 7,500 are not economic arguments.
Moreover, if we look at the breakdown of the number of immigrants coming to this country last year to work, we find that the number who came in on vouchers as Commonwealth immigrants was quite a small proportion of the total. There were 47,000 work permits granted to aliens in 1964. Registrations for National Insurance of citizens of the Irish Republic amounted to 39,000. The number of Commonwealth immigrants coming in on vouchers was only 14,000. That figure of 7,500 cannot, therefore, have been arrived at by considering the economic needs of the country.
What, then, was the basis? Was it that our educational system was strained; that in certain areas we could not assimilate the children of immigrants because of language difficulties, and so on? We are told that a survey of the schools is to be made. That presumably means that the survey has not yet been made, so there is no basis on which to found such an assumption. We know that in certain schools there are problems, but the education arguments cannot have been the reason for deciding on a figure of 7,500.
Was it shortage of housing? If so, how does it make sense that B vouchers are no longer being given to immigrants who have qualifications in the building trade when our own building industry is

facing difficulties because there are not enough people or materials to extend the housebuilding programme? If the cause were shortage of housing, one would have thought that B vouchers would continue to be issued to those with qualifications in the building trade.
If it is not housing that has determined this figure, is it that the Government have decided that Britain is incapable of integrating a large number of Commonwealth immigrants'? This could be one explanation, but it would, for me at any rate, be a very unplatable explanation. If that were the reason, it would put us in this country in no position to attack the policies of Dr. Verwoerd or, for that matter, of Mr. Ian Smith. Yet it seemed to me that the right hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Thorneycroft) came near to saying that this was the basis of his argument that it is impossible to integrate these people when he said that Commonwealth immigrants should be treated on much the same basis as aliens. If this were the basis of the Government's decision, it would foreshadow the end of any meaning to the Commonwealth, and I cannot think how the Conservative Party, as the party of the Commonwealth, could accept such a conclusion. We must therefore reject the idea that the Government have decided that it is impossible to integrate more Commonwealth immigrants into our community.
Are we, then, left with the unpleasant thought that the reason for arriving at this very tight figure is a Labour Government worried by a narrow majority and by the undoubted success of the exploitation of racial prejudice by a small minority in the Conservative Party in marginal seats? Is this the real reason for the Labour Party suddenly arriving at this very narrow figure? I would hope not, but it is very difficult for those of us who are wondering where this figure of 7,500 came from to come to any other conclusion.
The Government have to make a choice between principle and expediency. It is a choice that very often confronts political parties, and it is not an easy one. But we have now reached the position in which, if we give approval to the Government's policy, Parliament will be approving a situation in which, last year, more Spaniards—7,800—came to work in this country than will be allowed in future


to come from the whole of the Commonwealth. The arguments about dependants astound me. I should have thought that dependants today would be the productive workers tomorrow. I cannot understand the long argument about dependants that we have heard in this debate.
If we accept the figure of 7,500 we shall be accepting a situation in which South Africa will have benefited by leaving the Commonwealth because last year 520 work permits were given to citizens of South Africa, which is more than those to be given to any other Commonwealth country in terms of vouchers if the Government policy is to be implemented These are very serious outcomes of the Government's policy. Before the House tonight approves the continuation of the control the Government have over immigration, we should have some clear answer on how the figure of 7,500 was arrived at.

Mr. George Thomas: I have followed with very deep interest and concern every speech that has been made in this debate, not least the speech of the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel). He asked a lot of questions and gave a lot of answers. There was a question mark after his answers, of course, but on one of the questions I think I am able to give him satisfaction. On behalf of his hon. Friend the Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe), whose cold we hope will soon be better, he asked about the functions of officers of wartime tribunals. The hon. Member should tell his hon. Friend that those wartime appeal tribunals were dealing with aliens who were interned, not with those who have been refused admission. Therefore his argument on that question ceases to have the same effect.
No one in this House can approach the subject of immigration completely without emotion, or if he can he is a stone. We are dealing with the question of people who are seeking entrance to our shores and we are mindful also of people who have already come to live among us. My hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot), in a moving speech if I may say so without his feeling that I am patronising because I am going to disagree with some of the things he said, said that we must stand for absolute respect for racial equality. I

want to assure the Committee, and I can assure the Committee, that that is just what we stand for. I hope to bring supporting arguments as I develop my case.
There was only one speech, and I might as well get that referred to at once, which I thought went beyond the bounds of understanding. I am sorry to refer in this way to the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr), but some of his references to the subjects who have come to live among us will, I believe, disturb him when he reads HANSARD tomorrow morning. Our main aim on both sides of the Committee and in all quarters of the House must be to establish the maximum good will between those who have come to live among us and those who are the indigenous population. We all have responsibility also—I refer to it in passing—to help in the outstanding work of integration which has begun on a considerable scale by people voluntarily taking their part in towns and cities throughout the land under the guidance of my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Economic Affairs.
10.30 p.m.
Why are we seeking the reintroduction of the Measure? First, my hon. Friends will remember that at the last General Election we told the electorate that we would continue this Measure and these controls as long as we thought it was necessary. In this regard, we are fulfilling completely what we told the public. Of course, there are other Measures which have come since. We have the White Paper, part of which we are discussing along with the Measure. Why is it that we have thought it necessary to have the White Paper and also our proposals for dealing constructively with the question of immigration? First, I turn to the question of education. Everyone will realise that Her Majesty's Government have a major responsibility in this field for ensuring that those who come in are really treated on an equal basis, that equality of opportunity is given real meaning. The head teachers of the London county authority were reported in The Teacher, the organ of the National Union of Teachers—if I may be allowed that little "commercial" for the union to which I have the honour to belong—on 15th October to have issued a memorandum calling for classes of 15 in schools


where three-quarters of the children are immigrants, 20 where the balance is even, 25 in schools with a 40 per cent. immigrant population and 30 where the numbers meet the Department of Education's suggested limit of 30.
We must bear in mind the interests of people who are seeking to come into our land and work, and their dependants, if they are to be given a fair chance, will have to have far more attention than we have been able to give to the indigenous children. Naturally, when little ones go to a school and cannot speak the language and the first 18 months to two years has to be spent in teaching them the language, there is a special problem for everyone concerned. I could support this by referring to Circular 7/65 issued by the Department of Education and Science.
But there are some people, I know, who have felt agitated because of the recommendation that 30 per cent. in the school ought to be the fair target. There is no question at all of taking any child from the school to which he is going, not so far as we are concerned. But, of course, this could lead, if no caution is exercised, to all-immigrant schools. We also have to bear in mind the realities of life. Whatever we say and do here, if 80 per cent. of the little ones in a class do not speak English, then the parents of the other 20 per cent. will be agitated as any one of us would be about our little ones if they had to be held back for the teacher to do justice to himself and help the little ones get on.

Mr. Freeson: My hon. Friend referred to the circular which made certain recommendations for national policy for immigrants living in larger numbers than elsewhere. Is he aware that the vast majority of immigrant children in this country are English-speaking? Could we have some clarification as to whether that circular and my hon. Friend are referring to non-English-speaking children? What is meant by the Ministry when it talks about immigrant children? Nobody yet has had a clear answer on this.

Mr. Thomas: I hope my hon. Friend realises that when we talk in this context we are not making up a situation which does not eixst. There is no joy for us in creating a situation which is not there.
I have already quoted what the teaching profession is saying in this regard, and I hope that he is not going to advance the argument that there is nothing in this state of extreme difficulty which faces teachers and local authorities. In that circular the Secretary of State for Education and Science made constructive proposals on how to get additional help for the schools—I will refer to the cost later—so that we might he able to give a better chance for the little ones who are concerned.
The right hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Thorneycroft) asked who would pay for all this. At least, that was what it came to by the time the question reached over here. The right hon. Gentleman said that it would cost a lot of money. When local authorities have to employ extra teachers, as they do in these areas, when they can get them, then at least 60 per cent. of the teachers' salaries is found by the Government.
There are 7 million children in our schools today, 2 million of them in oversized classes. If not another soul came into our land from tonight, there would be another million little ones knocking at the doors of our schools within five years and in the next five years there would be another million. That is an additional two million children pressing for admission to our schools where already two out of every seven are in oversized classes. We are looking under stones for teachers [Laughter.] We are making massive appeals for teachers to return to the schools. Some of my hon. Friends are laughing at my metaphor, but I have been here long enough for hon. Members to understand my metaphors. I want the Committee to realise—and I am sure that it does—that in education there is a state of crisis where his problem is especially emphasised and exaggerated.
Nobody blames those Commonwealth kinsfolk of ours for gathering together in given communities. I come from a people who were scattered in the days of the depression and I know how the Welsh gathered together in Slough and Birmingham and London, and we formed our Welsh communities wherever we went. But by the very fact that so many of these folk come in with an inadequate knowledge of our language—and, despite what my hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, East (Mr. Freeson) says, a


great many are unable to speak a word of English—they are dependent on other members of their circle who can speak English, and so they gather together.

Mr. J. T. Price: I have great sympathy with what my hon. Friend is saying and on which he has been challenged. I do not have the honour to represent Bradford in Yorkshire and I have looked around the Chamber to see whether any hon. Member for Bradford is present. If any of them were here they would tell my hon. Friend that practically all the Pakistanis coming to Bradford—and vast numbers of them are working there—cannot speak English. According to the reports coming to me, the problem in Bradford is terrible. If they were here, the Bradford Members would be able to substantiate what my hon. Friend is saying.

Mr. Thomas: I mention this fact only to draw the Committee's attention to the fact that the social services in given areas are under enormous strain and those who carry the local responsibility given to them by Parliament are seeking help from Parliament. I will give an illustration from one city which is receiving great numbers of Commonwealth immigrants. I was told by the director of education that 300 children a month were coming to his area, which meant that he needed a new school and ten teachers every month. Of course he does not get the schools and he does not get the teachers.
It is no good closing our eyes to the fact that unless the Government are prepared to take action, we could create the very thing which all of us are anxious to avoid. I am positive that, regardless of politics, the one thing which we all want to avoid is the clash of races in this little land. Therefore, it is unjust to assume that we do not approach this matter with the same acceptance of the brotherhood of man and the same acceptance of respect for the human personality. But, having to carry responsibility, we have been obliged to take the steps which we have taken.

Mr. Thorneycroft: The hon. Gentleman speaks with great personal knowledge of education which is one of the most difficult aspects of the problem. Can he say how many courses are now run-

ning for training teachers to teach English as a foreign language?

Mr. Thomas: Many local authorities are running their own courses to help the teachers. We hope that in 1966 arrangements can be made for a full-time course for immigrant teachers, to help those who are qualified and who come here but cannot speak our language.
We have weekend courses for our own teachers. The Department of Education and Science and the local authorities are making first-class efforts in this direction. I would like to pay my tribute to the teachers who serve in these areas for the way in which they go the extra mile on our behalf.
10.45 p.m.
I turn to the question of health checks. My hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill) is herself a doctor and we listened with very great respect to what she said. None of us likes the thought of turning away a person from our shores because they are sick. I confess, I tell the Committee, that if I had the responsibility I could not, I would not, do it. But someone has to do this for us and the doctors are the people who have to face up to this.

Mr. Thomas: Immigration has not created serious health hazards, but it is sad to note that amongst those who come to us, a much higher proportion of these people suffer ill health due to the conditions under which they live. I ask those who object to any reduction of numbers to bear in mind these figures relating to tuberculosis notification rates in Birmingham, for 1960 to 1962; Pakistanis 18·2, Indians 4·5, Irish 2·1, West Indians 1·3, and ourselves, an indigenous population as a whole, 68.
Medical opinion is that the high incidence owes much to the overcrowded conditions under which these poor creatures live.

Mr. Buchan: I have been following the argument with great interest and I am wondering if my hon. Friend can also give the figure for the number of ward-maids, nurse and doctors of Indian, Pakistani and West Indian origin who keep our over-stretched hospital service from collapsing.

Mr. Thomas: I am going to do all that before I sit down. My hon. Friend


must not assume that I am not aware of the great debt that we owe to those who are amongst us. I am aware of it of course. I have paid a public tribute north, south, east and west to the debt that we owe to those who have come to live among us. But I am talking of a situation that now exists and I am giving statistics which my hon. Friend cannot afford to ignore.

Dr. M. S. Miller: Dr. M. S. Miller (Glasgow, Kelvingrove) rose—

Mr. Thomas: Let me pursue the argument, or my right hon. Friend will never speak.

Dr. David Kerr: Can by hon. Friend answer a question? He has quoted figures showing a very large range of notification rates as between Indians, Pakistanis and so on, and he suggested that overcrowding is a significant factor. Could he say whether this indicates a very significant difference in the overcrowding rates as it affects these different communities?

Mr. Thomas: What I am advised is that medical opinion is that these high incidences, and I quote, "are caused as much by overcrowding as by disease brought in."

Dr. Miller: Dr. Miller rose—

Mr. Thomas: No, I am not giving way, not for the moment at least. I am advancing this as a serious argument. if it is a question of compassion, of respect for human personality, of respect for the rights of man, are we not also to face the reality that we are already experiencing severe difficulties that challenge the Health Service which is at full stretch, so that my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax appeals to the House to consider ways in which we can deal with the situation?
I want to refer to one other matter—financial assistance to local authorities. The Government make their contributions to local authorities in many ways. The general grant takes into account extra expenditure by local authorities. But we hope that powers will be taken when Parliamentary time permits—possibly during the coming Session—which will case the pressure on the social services in those areas that are carrying special burdens.
Before resuming my seat may I say that we have heard some hard words in the course of the evening about the Home Office. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I often wonder how some of those who are so harsh in what they have to say about the Home Office would deal with these problems if they were at the Home Office. Do they think that we approach our work by abandoning all the principles that we have ever had? Do they think that when we get inside the Home Office—[Interruption.] I hope my hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, East will catch the eye of the Chair. It is about time that some of my hon. Friends realised that there are as much principle, compassion and care on this Front Bench as there are on the back benches, and that we are mindful that when we turn to this question of the folk who are coming among us we cannot avoid facing up to the responsibilities that the local authorities bring to our attention week in and week out.
I believe that what we are doing for integration, what we hope to do in the Race Relations Act and what we hope to do throughout the length and breadth of this land by the complete integration of those who have come amongst us, will be worthy not only of this great movement to which we belong but of the proud history of our people in these islands.

Mr. Goodhart: If I may continue the non-controversial tone of the Under-Secretary, I should like to tell the Committee that during the past weekend I was driving down a main road in Wiltshire, where I had the misfortune to drive along behind a somewhat dilapidated car which put out its traffic indicator to the left, and then, at a crossroads, did a half-turn to the right and stalled in the middle of the crossroads. I must say that as I went past this car I expected to see it driven by the present authors of the Government's Commonwealth immigration policy.
The hon. Member for Manchester, Exchange (Mr. Will Griffiths), when speaking on the last Amendment to this Bill, said that the debate on aliens control had followed very much the pattern that had gone before in earlier years—for the last 15 years. No one could make such an accusation about this evening's debate.
Two years ago, when a similar Amendment was moved from this side of the Committee by the then Leader of the Opposition, now Prime Minister, the right hon. Gentleman made two points. He said that the present system of control would be replaced by measures agreed and negotiated with the Commonwealth. He devoted most, if not all, of his speech to that point. When the Home Secretary spoke this afternoon, he made not one reference to that point. As today's debate has proceeded, there have been two references to the Mountbatten mission. They have been the only two references to Commonwealth co-operation, which was once the central issue of these debates.
The other point made by the Prime Minister when speaking on the occasion to which I have referred concerned integration, a point which has been touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Dorking (Sir G. Sinclair) and particularly by the hon. Member for Birmingham. Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley). They drew attention to the need for greater help. particularly in housing and education, a matter on which the Joint Under-Secretary has tonight spent a great deal of time.
For a long time during the hon. Gentleman's speech, I thought that extra help would be offered to the areas which are in special difficulty. Certainly, that appeared to be the tenor of his speech.
In fact, however, we got no further than the remarks contained in paragraph 43 of the White Paper, which states:
The Department of Education and Science is prepared to increase the teacher quota in areas where special staffing arrangements are required in schools with a high proportion of immigrants. Though this may not be of much help in areas which are already seriously short of teachers …
As the Joint Under-Secretary knows full well, it is precisely in the areas where there is a heavy concentration of immigrants that there is a particular shortage of teachers, and yet this evening we got no further than this sparse paragraph.
On housing, to which the hon. Gentleman made fairly scant reference, again we got no further than paragraph 35 of the White Paper, which states, in rather Micawberish terms, that
The solution must lie in a determined attack on the housing shortage generally".
We find, therefore, that every vestige of the main planks of the Prime Minister's speech of two years ago, when the present Government party occupied the benches on this side during a similar debate, has disappeared. What has appeared is an attempt to check the increase in the number of Commonwealth immigrants coming into the country, which, as the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) pointed out so forcefully, is a considerable change of ground.
11.0 p.m.
The A certificates have been limited to 8,500, although I note that if the numbers of A certificates and B certificates are taken up in full, as I presume they will be under the much more restricted numbers that will now be issued, and if the numbers of dependants are similar to those that have emerged from the initial survey taken under paragraph 19 of the White Paper, the dependants even of that limited number of voucher holders will not be far short of the 30,000 dependants who entered the country last year.
However, with the increased limitation on the number of A vouchers, it seems to be certain that the manner in which the certificates are issued will be called increasingly into question and will become a matter of increasing importance. I would ask the Minister of Labour, not necessarily when he comes to reply


tonight but in future, to look at the suggestion that has been made by the Bow Group that A certificates should not be just issued but should be put up for purchase by those companies which are seeking immigrants from abroad. The money from the sale of vouchers would help to underwrite the cost of the immigration service and, at the same time, it would ensure that only those firms that had the greatest need for immigrants got them.
A number of speakers, notably my right hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Thorneycroft) have referred to category B. My right hon. Friend forcefully pointed out the inconsistency of encouraging large numbers of doctors and nurses:0 go to the Commonwealth at a time when we are draining from the new Commonwealth so many in the same category. In my own constituency, in which there are three hospitals, 42 out of the 180 nurses come from the Commonwealth, and I would like to pay tribute to the work that they do. But it is an odd way in which to help the new countries of the Commonwealth which, as the hon. Member for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill) pointed out a few moments ago, need help in creating their own satisfactory hospital arrangements, to drain out so many of their nurses and doctors.
In dealing with category B immigrants, here at least there is a great role for Commonweatlh co-operation. Category B vouchers should be issued only where there is an agreement with the host country. Commonwealth co-operation seems to have largely disappeared from he lips of hon. Gentlemen opposite, but I hope that in this rather limited field we can look for a comeback in the future.
During the last 18 months the whole pattern of immigration to this country has changed, and now it is the dependants and those who are as it were fringe dependants make up the bulk of the number, and this, as the Joint Under-Secretary of State knows, is increasing the pressure on the schools.
In February the Home Secretary told us that there was going to be a tightening up and a toughening up of the policy of immigration for this group; that in fact the controls would be stiffened in some respects, and that greater efforts would be made to see that the control was effective,

but it seems to me that the system as it now stands cannot bear much extra pressure and that we might have to look anew at the whole system of immigration control.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) gave the overall figures for those entering this country. He told us that every year 15 million to 16 million people pass through immigration control at the ports and airports of this country. Of these, 4 million are aliens, and last year 406,000 of them were Commonwealth immigrants. To cope with this vast flood of people we have a staff of 492 immigration officers. I do not believe that it will be physically possible for them to deal with this problem under the present system for much longer, particularly if a greater measure of control is asked for from them.
Let us consider the position at London airport, which I visited recently with the hon. Gentleman. About 5 million people pass through the airport every year, and of these about 1½ million are aliens and about 278,000 are Commonwealth immigrants. To cope with this flood of individuals we have 158 immigration officers, including the chief immigration officers and all those who deal with the administration of this matter. Thus, when there is a rush, it is virtually impossible for them to give more than a cursory glance at those who come through. Indeed, London airport is not the place at which one wishes to turn back those who do not fit in with the rules that have been laid down.
Last year, 900 Commonwealth immigrants were turned back after they had reached this country. Since the Home Secretary's remarks in February and the change in the rules, that rate has now gone up to about 1,500 in a full year. Yet, as we know, within this figure there is an element of human tragedy for those who come from far afield. A 12-year-old boy from Pakistan was turned back. What happens to him when he arrives back in Karachi? This is not the place where humane control can easily be exerted, because to take immigrants all the way to London Airport and then reject them is to get the worst of all worlds.
Therefore, I believe that if we are to continue to exercise a system of control with a wide degree of discretion and


instead one in which the controls inevitably get tighter and tighter, we must take the controls away from our ports and, particularly, our airports, into the countries of origin. This was implied by the Home Secretary himself, when he agreed in February that the number of immigration officers overseas should be substantially increased. It is only by having the immigration officers overseas that there can be control in the countries of origin.
However, since February, only six immigration officers of the 492 have gone overseas, and of those one has returned. So the result is that 1 per cent. of the immigration control force has been moved overseas in the last eight months. I believe that we should radically change this system, that far more immigration officers should be recruited and that far more of them should be stationed overseas. It is only in that way that we can maintain effective controls without attracting large numbers of people to London Airport and to our ports, and then sending them back on a fruitless, tragic journey of thousands of miles.
Therefore, I hope—but do not expect—that in the next few months we shall see a drastic reshaping of our immigration officer policy. I do not believe that these men—hard-working, industrious men of great integrity—can, under the present system, stand the extra burdens which will inevitably be thrust upon them. Perhaps this will need some modification in legislation. But legislation in this respect is something of which this Government seem to be notably chary. We heard from the Home Secretary the importance of the Committee which they are setting up to study the whole subject of appeals against immigration officers' decisions and appeal by those who are about to be deported.
Of course, there is a good deal in the White Paper and in their proposals which they admit will need legislation.
11.15 p.m.
The White Paper states in paragraph 23:
The Government propose to seek a general power to impose conditions on the admission of any Commonwealth citizen who is subject to control".

Again, in paragraph 24 we find:
The Government propose to seek power for an immigration officer to include among the conditions on which a particular Commonwealth citizen is admitted one requiring him to register with the police".
This has nothing to do with the Committee which is now being set up. The Government say that these powers are important, yet there is no proposal for legislation this Session. The reason for that lack of proposed legislation is perfectly plain; that on this subject of immigration control the party opposite is fundamentally and basically split.

Mr. Paul B. Rose: The warmth of the acclamation for the Government's White Paper by the right hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Thorneycroft) is a sure warning to my hon. and right hon. Friends of the sort of strange bedfellows we are likely to have. The right hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Brooke) is one who would pose the debate on immigration as a discussion taking place between those who, on the one hand, advocate an open-door policy and those who, on the other, want to control the flow, at least in relation to the numbers. However, this is not the real issue and so long as this travesty of the real issue is allowed to confuse and cloud the argument, so long will it be impossible to discuss a rational and all-embracing immigration policy.
That the need for a rational policy is the issue is illustrated by some of the figures which I have been able to extract, partly from questioning the Home Office and partly from other similarly reliable sources. According to the Economist Intelligence Unit, the figure of our population of Indian, Pakistan and West Indian origin is now 759,000, or 1·4 per cent. of the population. Yet since the war, according to the Home Office, we have also had 336,000 persons of European nationality settling in this country, not including minors and those who have acquired British nationality through marriage.
No figures are available for the Republic of Ireland, but the control of immigration statistics issued under the Act show that 44,637 people were admitted to our shores last year. Similarly, 13,888 vouchers were issued to white Commonwealth countries, and we have heard from the right hon. Member for Monmouth about the large-scale evasion that has


gone on, particularly from the white Commonwealth. A total of 37,496 labour permits were issued to European workers and this year the number, after nine months, was 35,345.
Analysing these figures, two things emerge in regard to European migrants. First, perhaps one-quarter of those permit holders from Europe actually settled in this country and, secondly, the figure is increasing at a time when we are talking about limiting Commonwealth immigration. At the same time, we are imposing a quota of 15 per cent. maximum for any individual Commonwealth country in regard to A vouchers—and this is obviously intended to deal with countries which are what has been called the coloured Commonwealth rather than the white Commonwealth.
I make no apology for this differentiation because this is a fundamental debate and it is no secret that many of the people who most warmly advocated the Act in the first place were at the same time advocating the adhesion of this country to the Treaty of Rome, which would have allowed for the free coming in of labour from European countries. This is the crunch because these people see things differently when it comes to citizens from our Commonwealth.
And here we come to the real roots of the problem because, free from the pious protestations and the hypocritical cant, this debate is not about the control of immigration but about colour prejudice and discrimination against coloured Commonwealth citizens. It is for this reason that when we fix the numbers of Commonwealth immigrants allowed into this country, we are really fixing those numbers not on any scientific criteria in regard to the rate of absorption into this island, but, rather, on other criteria.
How do we arrive at this figure of 7,500 in the first place? Does this figure stand up to any rational analysis? What economic and social surveys have been undertaken to arrive at such a figure? I believe that this is an arbitrary number which was intended to placate the racialist bigots, on the one side, whilst not offending liberal sentiment too harshly on the other. I am sure that it will not placate liberal sentiment, particularly having regard to the treatment of the 1618 year olds, and the arbitrary powers

of deportation likely to be given to the Home Secretary. Whether or not we accept my hon. Friend's remark, and I do accept it, about compassion, it is right to say that in the past the Home Office has not exactly been the repository of human kindness.
The racialists in this country will not be placated; all they will do will be to step up their campaign of hate. One cannot argue statistics with criminal psychopaths, and to pander to the idiosyncrasies of these people with their paranoidic delusions is completely wrong. The hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. JohnStevas) put this point in one of the most courageous statements made in this House since the inception of this Government and Parliament. He said that there was a Dutch auction in illiberalism, and in a Dutch auction in illiberalism this side of the Committee will never win.
My contention is that an immigration policy has to be based, not on a negative reaction to only one small section of the immigrants or upon colour, but upon three basic principles. It has to be based, first, upon our own labour needs, and I am hoping to hear from my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour exactly how many people we need to make our National Plan work. Some say an additional 200,000 are needed. I am willing to accept that this number may not be too correct, and I should like to know what the figure really is.
Secondly, there are the social problems. It would be foolish of anybody to deny, and nobody on this side would deny, the confusion and difficulties that arise in parts of our cities because of an influx of people into a very different environment. But there is always a transitional period, a period of change, in which immigrants from whatever part of the world they may come are absorbed as a new group into the life of society generally.
Above all, the problem is a housing problem; one of houses and services, and I hope to show this later. I would only comment now that immigrants are also busy producing homes, and I believe that it is right to say that they are producing more homes than they are living in. They are keeping many of our services going. Our National Health Service would collapse without them. I join with those


who pay tribute to the doctors and nurses from the Commonwealth. Many of us in a personal sense have reason to be thankful to them.
Thirdly, I believe that we have also to consider the economic and political status of the countries from which immigration comes. There is a strong argument here for discrimination, and the discrimination should be in favour of those countries which, historically, have a special economic relationship with this country; where we have failed at a time of rapid industrialisation in our own country to industrialise in those countries. Therefore, if there is to be discrimination at all, it should be in favour of countries like Eire and the West Indies, and other countries with high rates of unemployment.
That is why I agree with what was said by the right hon. Member for Monmouth about A and B vouchers, because principally this is a selfish act on our part. I believe that the arguments advanced in the past with regard to the Republic of Eire have always been spurious. If we really wanted to stop evasion we might start by tackling one problem that has not yet been mentioned, and that is the issuing of National Insurance cards. I came across a case only last week where seamen who had deserted their ships were working in Salford almost as semi-slaves for unscrupulous employers who had managed to obtain National Insurance cards for them. This might be a very useful way of checking it.
The argument in regard to the Republic of Ireland does not apply. The fact that hon. Members have said in the past that we cannot deal with the Republic because we cannot control people coming from it is not a fair argument. The fair and honest argument which should be put forward is that we have a special responsibility to the Republic of Ireland, the West Indies, Mauritius and other countries which we allowed to stagnate while our economy was being industrialised. This is something which we should face honestly. I was much impressed by the arguments of an Irish organisation which said:
The colour bar is the essence of the White Paper policy, but it would be a pitiable thing if we were to camouflage this on the

basis that two wrongs made a right—by making the Irish the scapegoat, although the Irish economy has been moulded by Britain no less than that of Jamaica. It is surely the starting point of a rational, and indeed a Socialist, immigration policy that those countries whose economic life has been moulded by British policy should have the first right of ingress.
Instead we seem intent on standing this principle on its head by stopping those who should have the right of ingress. This is a basic criticism of the White Paper. It is clearly dictated by the politics of colour played by some of the lunatic fringe among hon. Members opposite. Those people have not been slow to appeal to the more primitive and more uninformed sections of their electorate and albeit small, but very vocal, minorities. Those who have played that game in the past in Nazi Germany learned at their own cost what forces of evil and bestiality they could unleash by pandering to the disease of racialism.
I call on my right hon. and learned Friend to stand firm in face of those people who because of personal insecurity or inadequacy or who have ambitions in politics, are willing to use this method of inflammatory racialist material and propaganda and who have to be stopped. Already violence and arson have been spread by these people in this country and they are strutting around again as they did in the thirties. We have to deal with these firmly if we are to accept some of the things we are asked to accept in this Bill. I should like to see the Race Relations Act used to deal with this menace.
I should also like it to be extended to the field of housing because it is there that action should be taken if we are to get down to the problem of integration and if we mean what we say when we talk about compassion. If hon. Members opposite mean what they say about integration, we have to deal with this problem of housing. For this reason I should like to extend the Act not only to housing but in order to get down to positive proposals for integration. Discrimination undoubtedly exists in other fields, but above all in housing, and action has to be taken if we are to get rid of this colour problem.
We have to face the fact that colour remains. This is why we get statements, sometimes from our own Government Front Bench, about "immigrant children" when they mean children of immigrants.
There is a grave danger that instead of becoming assimilated—as has been the case with other immigrant communities in the past—because of their colour, despite their assimilation in language, customs and employment, we may be creating ghettoes in twilight areas in our cities. Much discussion has gone on about restriction of entry, but we should think more positively about integration into the community.
11.30 p.m.
The Institute of Race Relations recently conducted a survey in Birmingham and London and its findings could be the starting point for some positive action. Then we would find out who are sincere people in the House of Commons concerning integration and who are playing on this issue for political motives.
Immigrants have financial problems and have to get cheap rented accommodation. The supply of this sort of accommodation is decreasing in the city areas. Many landlords will not take in coloured tenants and the immigrants are forced, therefore, into a situation where they have to club together in order to purchase property. Usually they end up by buying decaying Victorian buildings that still exist in our cities, with the help of loans and mortgages at high interest rates. The only way of paying for these is by letting premises or sub-letting premises and taking in lodgers.
For 11 years during which the last Government were in office and before trey saw fit to bring in that Commonwealth Immigrants Act, they did not do anything to facilitate absorption of tie immigrants. Having created the problem, having brought in the immigrants because this would stimulate our economy—and it has benefited—the Conservatives have turned round and used the immigrants as scapegoats for their own failure in dealing with the Lousing problem. I believe we now have to get down to the task of seeing that the immigrants get out of the ghettoes.
Mention has been made by the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) of the Dutch

action in allocating a percentage of housing for immigrants. The time has gone when we could have used this creditable method. A great deal could be done by the local authorities, through a points system, in the allocation of houses to see that immigrants do not start with a built-in disadvantage as at present.
Far more use could be made of the social services to explain the intricacies of house purchase and of putting names down for council houses. The Race Relations Act should be extended to deal with those nauseating people, estate agents, who protest their opposition to colour prejudice but refuse to sell houses to coloured people on new estates, or established estates, for so-called commercial reasons. Building societies also are not likely to favour immigrants.
One of the things we could do, which was suggested in an excellent pamphlet by that Bow Group, is to pay more attention to housing associations of a multiracial character. In the United States, particularly, housing associations of this kind have been able to break down some of the ethnic barriers.
There have been other articles based on rational surveys of the problem in various part of the country. One, in particular, by John Rex, the sociologist, appeared in New Society. He alleged that the Birmingham City Council had shown it was willing to hold up development plans rather than accept responsibility for rehousing immigrants. The same allegation was made on 22nd October this year in the Observer in relation to Deptford, which, it was was alleged, had skirted the area so as to avoid housing any immigrant family.
It is wrong to advocate better treatment for immigrants than for our own people. Heaven knows, some of our own people have endured the slums for their whole lifetime, but, as immigrants help the national economy, why should not the nation help those councils who have acted as hosts to the immigrant community, such as Manchester, to deal with their particular problem?
This is why I should like to see special help channelled to those areas where there is a high concentration of immigrants so that they can be aided with their housing


problem. I believe we have to do something to smash the ghettoes that are growing up in our cities. I believe also that one of the ways was pointed out by an interesting article by a Mr. John Barr who posed new towns as anti-ghettoes in the sense that many of the developing communities would be admirably suited to welcoming immigrants. He wrote:
The results would benefit not only the immigrant but also the new towns. The towns are still malleable, but since they are so self-contained they could in time become tight and insular communities. New non-English faces would be a good thing. So would fewer faces in these concentrations of coloured people in some areas of London.
I believe that, as was said in the Bow Group pamphlet, in the long term an end to the housing shortage would go a considerable way to removing the principal social pressure on immigrant families. Meantime we must take action to bring immigrants in every way into the general life of the community instead of treating them as so many hon. Members have done, as a phenomenon distinct and apart. I believe that only prejudice on our side and possibly resentment on the other stand in the way, and by yielding to prejudice, as many hon. Members feel that the Government have done, we do not help to break down those attitudes and the prejudice and resentment that exist. We need, above all, education and propaganda, and where necessary, I might say to my right hon. and learned Friend, the force of law. A whole new philosophy has to be developed with regard to immigration by planning according to our economic and labour needs, according to the social difficulties involved, and planning also in connection with our moral obligation to those territories whose economies are geared to ours.
So immigration is a challenge to us all. If we can overcome prejudice and build a humane and rational society here based on tolerance and mutual respect, I believe we shall have enhanced authority in the world. We shall be able to say to Mr. Ian Smith not "Do as I say" but "Do as I do". If we fail, I believe that we shall have failed the test of a really enlightened society. I believe that in the long run we shall not fail. I draw strength from the fact that the cotton workers of Lancashire were willing to starve rather than support the Confederate

States in the American Civil War, that there is a great spring of idealism in the country which can be tapped, as opposed to the prejudices of racialism. The ideas that inspired the churches, chapels and the Labour movement in Lancashire are still alive. One Smethwick does not make a summer for the purveyors of racial hatred. We on this side of the Committee should show ourselves ready to fight for what is right and what is principle.
I believe that if these issues were put to the people honestly, not as the choice posed by hon. Members opposite over numbers or the open door or the closed door—for that is not the choice—but as a moderate policy of controlled immigration based on a rational appraisal of our social and economic needs and not based on colour, I believe that the people would understand and reject a policy based on colour and accept the policy of controlled immigration based on reason.

Mr. A. R. Wise: The hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose) has just delivered a wholehearted assault on his Government's efforts to extend the operation of the 1962 immigration Act, following, of course, the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot), who started this attack in one of his always very entertaining but gloriously irrelevant speeches, to which I listened with enormous pleasure. I think that the Home Secretary need not be afraid. His lunatic fringe will never vote against him. His zealots below the Gangway will never vote against him. So he can rest unworried. I do not apologise for detaining the House at a rather late hour because last year I had the pleasure of starting the debate on the renewal of the Act. From there we have made quite satisfactory progress although not as much as I would have liked.
I did not think then, when I listened to the admirable speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary that 12 months later we would not have had a Bill. The White Paper is something, but we really should have had a Bill by now. Events have pushed the Government steadily on what I consider to be the right path. I only hope that they will be pushed a little faster in the future. They have no fears about their future if they proceed with a proper Bill for the control of immigration as it


should be controlled. I am happy to say that we have had from the Government benches a singular freedom from the platitudes which came from their opponents who used the usual platitude about integration. People seem to think that all you have to say is, let us integrate somebody and the problem is solved. It is not as simple as that.
During the discussion on the Race Relations Act representations were made, probably quite rightly, by the Jewish community who wanted to be included as racial group. In other words, integration is not complete even for them and the first Jewish immigrants started to arrive 30 years ago. Integration is not a thing which comes overnight.

Mr. Heffer: Does the hon. Gentleman understand that integration is not assimilation?

Mr. Wise: I would prefer to turn it up in a dictionary. It does not seem in the sense in which it is used for immigrants to be very different.
It has to be remembered that there are certain number of immigrant communities who do not wish to be integrated. There are Pakistanis in my constituency whom I know well who have no desire to be integrated. They want to remain Pakistanis. They think that their community and their customs and their religion are better than ours.

Dr. Miller: Integration means being one part of the whole. Assimilation means becoming exactly like the community in which one is situated.

Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas: Does it not imply, to a certain extent, inter-marriage?

Mr. Wise: I think that it does, but I am not sure that these communities are in any way prepared to accept it. It may by possible, but the time is not yet and it will take a very long time. The Government realise, quite rightly, that they have to do something practical in the interval.
We have, if I may use a platitude myself, an overcrowded island and it is getting daily more overcrowded. Curiously enough, there is talk about a shortage of labour. It is really a shortage of machines because we are not using our labour properly and I think that the

Minister of Labour will agree. If we had used our labour properly and paid the full rate for the job in the past few years there would not have been this incessant demand for immigrants. Now we can see the problems which arise from being lazy about getting the full benefits of a modern age. I hope that the Bill will come soon and will contain the principles which I trust are in the Government's mind.
11.45 p.m.
The suggestion that immigration permits should be put out in the country of origin has much to be said for it, but I am not at all sure that the countries of origin would be prepared to allow that to happen and, of course, the Indian Government, for instance, could perfectly well stop the putting of British immigration officers at Indian ports. More questions need to be answered than are now being answered. The arbitrary quota which we are enforcing has much to be said for it, again as a temporary measure, but it is an arbitrary quota and hon. Members must accept that. More research needs to be done. In itself, the quota will not avoid the major problems which are occurring with immigrants.
It has first to be shown that the immigrant has a job to go to. That is quite sound and proper, but we have to go further than that. We should be assured that he has a decent dwelling to accommodate him when he comes here. That is not an impossible thing to look for. As it now happens, when immigrants come here they have nowhere particular to go and they get into these rabbit warrens where they pay grossly exaggerated rents for a single room. Nothing can be done about it, because the local authority knows perfectly well that if it enforces the provisions of the overcrowding legislation of 1937 and turns out these people, it will have to rehouse them and there will then be absolute hell to pay in the area because of the new immigrants jumping the housing queue over the heads of people waiting for houses. It is hardly surprising that local authorities are prepared to turn away and allow this to go on.

Dr. David Kerr: Would the hon. Gentleman explain where these houses are to come from, from housing associations, or private enterprise, or local


councils which, he said, would be in great difficulty about providing them?

Mr. Wise: That is a problem for Her Majesty's Government who, after all, are responsible for or getting the houses built. A point which I did not intend to make, because it is a party point, is that we are already falling short of the housing target, so that it will be very difficult to fulfil this condition and we shall be falling more and more short of that target as the years go by.
The next consideration is that the immigrants must be going to an area where there is education accommodation for their children, if any. We cannot continue with the problem which is to be found in Birmingham where there is constant trouble because there are so many immigrant children in a given school. The Joint Under-Secretary read a very sound statement on this very matter by a professional body. After all, we are directing industry and labour to various places in the interests of the economy, and it seems perfectly reasonable to tell each immigrant that if he wants to come here he should be going to a place where his children can be properly educated without putting an undue strain on the education services. That may require an alteration in the schools programme—although I do not see why it should—but, in any case, that, again, fortunately, is a headache for Her Majesty's Government and not for Her Majesty's Opposition.
There was a proposal that we should allow people in only as vacancies occurred because of people going out, but I do not think that that is practicable. There is a certain attraction about the idea, because it would keep numbers fairly stable and enable us to solve the important administrative problems before getting down to a final policy on immigration. These problems have to be solved before we can have a final sensible policy. We must see that the immigrant population is dispersed a bit so that the new immigrants do not go on adding to the rabbit warrens which already exist. As it is, as they come in they gravitate, naturally, to those places and they make the situation worse than it was before. We have to do some really serious work on the administrative side.
We have a large number of dependants awaiting arrival in this country. It seems that we might very well check immigration until we have these dependants over. These people have the first claim to join their families here. I think that the definition of dependant is fairly narrow and can be maintained in justice. It has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. JohnStevas), that it is inhuman is separate families and not to let them in. I think that is perfectly true. It is perfectly easy, with new immigrants, to find out from them, before they arrive, how many dependants they propose to bring. Having done that we know where we are on the question of dependants and the amount of immigrants that we are going to let in. These things are essential for an intelligent and coherent policy.
I firmly believe that the Government, having started on the right path, may well, I hope before this time next year, come forward with a Bill giving a coherent immigration policy which I will support with the greatest pleasure in the world.

Mr. Laurence Pavitt: It is rather apt that I should follow the hon. Gentleman the Member for Rugby (Mr. Wise) who started last year's debate, because I finished it then. I think that it is the only time since I have been in the House of Commons that I have ever had the pleasure of having the complete agreement of both sides when I started my speech, at five minutes to one o'clock by saying that I was reluctant to detain the Committee. I received a cheer from both sides, equally reluctant to be detained. Having listened to the hon. Member for Rugby, I feel that he proved once again the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot). I had hoped that I would be able to follow the hon. Member for Chelmsford who is likely to make a more humanitarian approach from hon. Members opposite. But all that the hon. Member for Rugby suggested to Her Majesty's Government on the question of controls was obnoxious and merely sought ways and means of making even worse some of the present provisions of this Act.
I have the honour to be one of the team which opposed this Act in 1962. I notice that I spoke on Second Reading,


Third Reading, and 13 times on the Committee stage. Those 13 times were unlucky because I did not succeed in defeating the Government of that day. I remember the events which led to that Act, the pressure of two hon. Members opposite in particular, one of whom is no longer a Member of this House, which forced the Government into the situation of bringing this Act before the House in 1961.
When the party which I serve decided that it was going to oppose the Act it did so after a good deal of deliberation and against public opinion in the country. The hon. Member for Dorking (Sir G. Sinclair) suggested that it was time that somebody gave a lead to public opinion. I can remember the lead that was given at that time because when we were discussing our opposition to the Act, the Gallup Poll showed that the general opinion of people was in favour of restricting immigration, and in favour of a certain amount of colour bar and racialism. To its credit, my party decided to defy the Gallup Poll and we fought a very vigorous campaign on the Floor of this Committee. At the end of the day public opinion had changed, partly due to the good leadership given by the late Hugh Gaitskell, who fought this tooth and nail from the Front Bench opposite, and partly from the way in which the public was educated as a result of the debate.
The party opposite has no differences with us in trying to solve the very real problem. The difference that occurs at the moment is whether this is the right method for doing so. I would contend, as I contended in debate last year, that this Act, far from helping, actually hinders the problem we face in the constituencies. I want to assure my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, for whom I have a high regard and about whose sincerity I would defer to no man in this House, that we realise that there are very real problems, and it is because we have tackled them for a long time that we are concerned that we should tackle them in the right way.
I first met this problem long before I was a Member of this House. It was in 1958 when I was a founder member of the integration committee of Willesden. I came into the House 18 months later,

and I am delighted that, six years later, the chairman of that integration committee, who at that time was an alderman and leader of the Willesden Borough Council, is also a Member of the House. I refer to my hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, East (Mr. Freeson).
We made a tremendous step forward, to get coloured people from different parts of the Commonwealth who came into the constituency sitting jointly with those who were already resident in the area, and others, tackling at the grass roots the problem that we were facing. I again pay tribute to the leadership shown by my hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, East, in the practical job of sending two people, one coloured and one white, to conciliate between the parties when there were signs of an eruption breaking out, and so damp down what could have been another Notting Hill in Willesden.
I remember that last year my right hon. and learned Friend the present Home Secretary, in his case for continuing for 12 months what some of us accepted with reluctance, put forward three things which would happen in the ensuing year and which would, it was hoped, make it unnecessary to bring forward the Act this year. The first was the introduction of the Race Relations Bill into the House. The second was Commonwealth action. The third was that there should be overseas development activities which would help us to solve the problem at this end of the pipeline.
The first point has come to fruition. We got the Race Relations Bill—not quite so strongly as one would have liked it to be; nevertheless, it is on the Statute Book and it is now illegal to have discrimination on racial grounds. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Overseas Development has done a tremendous job in a short time at her end of the scale, and so I believe the Home Secretary has fulfilled that part of the bargain.
I would, however, quarrel with the second point that he made because we have failed lamentably over the whole question of getting the right kind of Commonwealth action to make this a Commonwealth combined operation. During the Second Reading of the Bill in 1961, when the then Government claimed that they had managed to get


co-ordination and co-operation from the Commonwealth, Sir Grantley Adams was sitting in the Gallery and, as the claim was made from the Government Front Bench, Sir Grantley Adams shook his head. The Commonwealth was not consulted; it was informed. What we had hoped would happen this year was that the Commonwealth would be brought into this problem as a Commonwealth problem, and that there would be a combined operation by the various countries concerned, as well as by us, in order to find ways and means of surmounting the problem.
I would have been dealing with this subject earlier had I been called, because I am particularly concerned with one of the few failures of the Government, namely in appointing the Mountbatten Mission in the form in which it was appointed. The Government must have known that Lord Mountbatten was persona non grata in Pakistan, and so he was off on the wrong foot in that part of the world. During the Recess I talked to the Chief Commonwealth Immigration Officer, who shall be nameless, of another country which was visited by this mission. From what I was told, it was more than useless, and it was a waste of time for the mission to make the journey and talk to that particular country.
12 m.
I was hoping that we would have the kind of mission that would have some understanding of the situation, not one that viewed the problem from the establishment point of view—what ought to be done for the poor coolies in the Commonwealth countries where the sun happens to be rather hot—but one that sought to do something constructive, such as the setting up of a joint working party, with joint operations. I was hoping that it would be not just an item on the agenda when Commonwealth Prime Ministers get together, but the kind of structural machinery that would be needed to give effect to this. This has not yet happened, but I hope that our discussion of the last eight hours may lead my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Government to think again about ways and means in this direction. I feel certain that they have not yet exhausted all the possibilities that could be found if they had the will to do so.
My main opposition to the Act is because its effect on integration is disastrous. The kind of committee on which we have been working in my constituency and in that of my hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, East was shattered when the White Paper was issued. Good people, immigrants, who had been doing a job of work there were saying that they must now form their own racial groups because they could not get protection from the kind of action which has been taking place in the Government. That could be disastrous.
The real problems have been mentioned on all sides and we have to tackle them. Much has been made of the education problem, and it weighs heavily upon the teaching profession. I had great pride only two weeks ago to share a platform with Sir Learie Constantine. We were at a school, which happened to be on the other side of the road in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, East, which has 55 per cent. immigrants.

Mr. Freeson: It is now 60 per cent.

Mr. Pavitt: The figure is now 60 per cent., I am told. It was an inspiration. The head boy was coloured. The school was working on a staff ratio a little better than the rest of the locality but still not up to the standard that my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary would like.
There was a determination to overcome the problems, and they were being overcome. That is the kind of approach we would like to see, not the restriction of controls, but facing the reality of the situation. Whatever restrictions there may be in Willesden will not solve the problem of integration. Our immigrants are already there.
I should like to tell my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour that with the Park Royal factory estate, the whole of the North Circular Road area and the factories all around, it does not matter what kind of restrictions are imposed. While the jobs are there, the people will be there; and while people are there, there will be problems of housing and all the social problems arising from an area like mine which was built up before this century.
The Government are making a large contribution outside the Commonwealth Immigrants Act. The whole range of


regional development and redeployment of industry will help my constituency considerably when it gets to work. It is not working at present. No sooner does a factory in my area transfer to Swansea than another firm takes over, and when the new firm takes over, more workers are needed to build machines. As long as that happens, the problem remains.
It has been rightly said of my constituency that the greatest problem is housing. We have had housing problems for the last thirty years. My hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary will be interested to know that analysis of the advertisements to find how many said "No coloureds" showed that at least two said "No Welsh". We had a large influx of Welsh after 1926, and in 1939 we had a large influx of Irish. At the 1961 census there were 9,100 Commonwealth immigrants and 9,400 other immigrants, mostly Irish. They are welcome in my constituency, because the houses that we want are often built by the Irish who are there.
I would say this to my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale who made a relevant speech and went to the crux of the problem, in spite of the comment of the hon. Member for Rugby. This is what we do not like about the Act. We are not seeking planned control to deal with or organise the problems, but against a colour bar which is basically written into the Act. It always will be written into it as long as the door is open for those who have a white skin but closed to those who happen to have a black skin.
The situation has been aggravated by the White Paper because, like my hon. Friends who have made protest and like the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel), I cannot see what logic there is in the figure shown In the White Paper, or where it emerged from. I can see no logical fact which points to it being the right figure.
I consider that the problem has to be solved on the basis of the best way to deal with the people when they are here. I am a member of the Central Middlesex Hospital Committee, where we have 828 nurses, 278 of whom are from the Commonwealth. The hospital service in my area would have to close its wards but for those people. But we do not want to

patronise them and say that they come in by our leave. I have been appalled by the speeches of some hon. Gentlemen opposite, in which the main consideration has been: "My lot first, and then, if you can be fitted in and can give us some kind of service, you are welcome." We have heard from them no suggestion of treating these people, who are members of the Commonwealth, in the same way that we would expect to treat members of the Commonwealth who are born in our country.
The hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles wondered if there is some point of electoral advantage which has led to the change of attitude on the Government Front Bench. Certainly there has been a change of attitude. We accept that. But I would say to the hon. Gentleman that from my point of view at least there is no question of electoral advantage.
I fought the last election on this issue because my opponent made it the main objective in his election manifesto. In the case of my hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, East the situation was aggravated further by the fact that he is a well-known figure in the Jewish community, and not only was the Commonwealth immigration question hurled at him, but the whole subject of racial discrimination.
During the whole of the campaign I did not address a single meeting without having to say why I was one of the team which opposed the Commonwealth Immigrants Act, 1962. I was able to say that I still opposed it, and my canvassers were instructed to say that I supported Labour Party policy. As a result, I increased my majority by 3,200, and in the Willesden, East constituency my hon. Friend was able to win the seat from the sitting Conservative Member. The electoral advantage cancels itself out.
We are up against the fact that there has been and always is in all of us a measure of prejudice. In the kind of pressures that have developed, that prejudice has been allowed over a short period of time to outrun the voice of reason.
At the end of the debate last year, I gave a qualified assent to putting this Measure on the Statute Book for another year, in the hope that it would never be


necessary again. In the final words of the debate, I said:
I hope that the result of the debate will be constructive and that we will see a new approach and a different solution to a real problem."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th November, 1964; Vol. 702, c. 396.]
I say again to my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench that it is not good enough to come back with a rather stale way of dealing with what is a real, an important and a most fundamental question.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose) has said, we are in the situation that in the present generation and the next one we have to solve the problem of a multiracial world. If we cannot do it under a Labour Government, I see little hope of our giving a lead to the peoples of the world, the people of Rhodesia, of Africa, of Asia and of the West Indies, on how best to establish an integrated society. irrespective of race, colour or creed.
It is because I am hopeful that my right hon. and hon. Friends will have second thoughts about their proposals in the White Paper so that we can go forward with fresh ideas on these very urgent problems that I am prepared once again to say, "Yes". But I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends not to press us to do it again for a further year.

Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas: It must be a point of congratulation to us all that we are still here, nearly eight hours after the discussion was opened so auspiciously by my right hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Thorneycroft). I think it is a testament to the importance of this debate that so many hon. Members are waiting here at this late hour, and I must thank the hon. Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt), and the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose) for their gracious references to myself. The least that I can do is to repay them in equal currency and congratulate them both on notable contributions to the debate.
I was extremely interested in the speech of the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot). It was described by my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mr. Wise) as irrelevant, and I think that strictly speaking that is correct, but no blame for its irrelevancy rests on the hon.

Member for Ebbw Vale, because he has remained consistent to his principles, and he has had the mortifying experience of seeing the leadership and the bulk of his party move on and leave him alone on his rock of principle. [Interruption.] Very well; he is alone on his rock of oratory, and it was a relief to us on this side of the Committee that his Dantonesque oratory was directed not against us, but against his own leaders in a kind of dialogue about what constituted fundamental Labour principles into which I feel it would be impertinent of me to venture.
We are, and should be, grateful for the restraint which has been shown in this debate, particularly so because this is a problem which, if it is to be solved, must be solved by reason rather than by emotion. But, if we are to be reasonable about it, we must get it into proportion, and one feature of the debate which I very much regret was the injection into the debate earlier on by the Home Secretary, who unfortunately has now gone home to Hampstead.

Mr. George Thomas: The Home Secretary has been here all day, and he has gone out for a glass of water.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am delighted that the Home Secretary is refreshing himself so abstemiously and therefore setting an example to us all, but I would rather that he had been here to answer this point, because if I recall it rightly—I do not wish to do him an injustice—I think that it was he who injected into the debate the rather speculative figure of 500,000 dependants waiting to come to this country. From where did the Home Secretary get that figure? Is it based on any research? Is it based on evidence? Or has it been conjured out of the rarified atmosphere of the Home Office?
The first time I heard that sort of figure mentioned in this House was when the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House, who crept in a little earlier and has since crept out again, no doubt to get a glass of water, produced a similar figure. It is precisely that sort of figure which distorts the whole discussion because it implants in people's minds fears which are not justified. If one looks at this over the long term, the probability is that the number of dependants entering this country will go down rather than up, particularly because the number of vouchers has been cut down drastically.
I think that most hon. Members would be agreed on the principle of control. I think most would agree that this should be strict, and that the numbers should be limited, but at the same time it is worth saying that there are pressing economic reasons which point the other way. It was the First Secretary of State who, in a burst of characteristic candour some months ago, said that in the present economic situation, with a shortage of labour, it would be madness to restrict immigration in any way.
Economically I can understand that argument. It is borne out by the National Plan, that golden calf of the First Secretary, which, despite high precedents to the contrary, we are all bidden to bow down and worship. There one gets a gap of 200,000 workers by 1970 put forward as a conservative estimate.

12.15 a.m.

Mr. Michael Foot: It is like the Golden Calf of the capitalist state.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Could not that gap in some way be filled by immigration from the under-employed Commonwealth, from citizens who are either totally unemployed or who could be more profitably employed here? That is a question which should at least be put.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ray Gunter): The hon. Gentleman will understand that, when the National Plan deals with a shortage of manpower of 200,000, the emphasis is on skilled manpower.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I will come down to earth: I will leave the National Plan. I introduced it merely as a matter of courtesy to hon. Gentlemen opposite. Let me take the example of my own constituency, which is rather nearer to reality. We have great troubles over our local bus services: there are buses, but no crews to run them. I wonder if the people in Chelmsford, as they stand in the sleet, rain and snow, waiting for a bus which never comes, would care, when a bus came, about the colour of the Face of the driver of that bus. This is a question which brings the whole problem down to the realities of economic fact.
Some may think that the First Secretary, in making that statement, was indulging not only in a moment of candour but in a moment of truth. Unfortunately, as the Archbishop of Canterbury should have realised, concern for the simple truth is as rare in English politics as it is in English religion. I must congratulate the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale on his concern for the simple truth. The First Secretary, far from being hailed as a prophet and being suitably rewarded, had to run for cover and explain away his statement in the most emollient way possible.
The facts of the situation, whatever the economic arguments may be, are that the country as a whole has decided, for social reasons, that we do not want more than a minimum of coloured immigrants. I accept that position. I do not say that I necessarily agree with it, but I accept that that is the national consensus on this subject. I only wish that the White Paper, which was such a mixture of humbug and hypocrisy, had stated this frankly.
The figure of 20,000 vouchers issued in 1964—of which 15,000 were taken up—is to be cut to 8,500. I regret the quite arbitrary nature of that figure, but I accept it as being roughly in accord with the national will. After all, it is Oxford and not Westminster which is the home of lost causes. I am prepared to fight for what I believe in and I would go to the stake for a principle, but I will not be incinerated for a statistic.
There are two further points, which are also part of the national consensus, which I should like to bring out. First, there is the question of the unity of the family. It is essential to stress this point, because, whenever the Government move their policy towards restriction, there are some hon. Members who wish to move ahead of them and be more restrictive. No system of control would be acceptable to the House or the nation which separated members of a family one from another. It would be unacceptable to the Christian conscience and it would be equally unacceptable to the moral conscience of the community as a whole. It has been stated to be unacceptable by my right hon. Friends the Members for Monmouth and Hampstead (Mr. Brooke) and I also agree with its rejection.
Faced with such a unanimity over such a wide range of opinion, we can only conclude that we are probably right. England, after all, is a domestic country, and it is here that the home above all is honoured and the family is revered. This is a national attitude which is reflected in our constitution, where we have not a person but a family on the Throne.
My hon. Friends have made it clear that however strongly we might argue for control, we argue equally strongly for the equal treatment of our citizens. It would be a mockery to say this and then to deny them the right to a family life. This is a moral matter. To separate families is morally wrong, and for many of us that is the end of the matter. But there are pressing, practical reasons which reinforce this moral attitude. Our social aim must be to enable immigrants to become good and full citizens.
How are they to become good and full citizens if they are denied the normal setting of family life? We know from experience—for example, of Italian workers in Germany separated from their families—how psychological disorders follow complete separation from the family background. Does any hon. Member—apart from the hon. Gentleman who advocated a complete stopping of immigrants into this country—believe that single men herded together in dormatories, separated from all the domestic stabilisers, can be of service to the country? The question has only to be posed to be answered. We should keep families together, therefore, not from sentiment and not even from idealism, but because it is ordinary common sense.
The second point on which I think there would be wide agreement is that while the rules for immigration should be fairly and strictly enforced, they should also be humanely enforced, and this applies especially to families. The danger of strict orders going out from the Home Office to the immigration officials is that there will be much more room for arbitrary enforcement of those rules, and this is particularly true when families are involved.
We know that the wife has a right to come into the country and I was delighted when the Joint Under-Secretary disposed, I hope for ever, of the scurrilous story about immigrants bringing in two, three or four wives. The hon. Gentle-

man produced an important piece of evidence when he said that there was no evidence in his Department of cases of that nature.
We know that dependent children under 16 have a right to come in. May that long continue. But what I most regret about the White Paper is the provision which withdraws the concession allowing children who are dependent on their parents who are between 16 and 18 to come in. Why has that concession been withdrawn? The White Paper points out that it might be a means of securing the admission of young immigrant workers without vouchers, but what evidence is there of that having happened? And if there is such evidence, surely it is possible to close any loopholes by strict administration of the law, rather than removing the concession altogether.

Mr. George Thomas: This is an important point. It has been made clear in another place by the Joint Under-Secretary who serves in that House that where young people—between 16 and 18 years—are coming to join either both parents or the sole surviving parent, they are normally to be admitted. However, the Committee should know that in this matter there has been a considerable amount of difficulty, such as people posing as being younger and so on. A great deal of thought has gone into this matter —the necessity to tighten things up, and so on—hut I thought I should intervene to make the position clear.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has drawn that modification of the White Paper to my attention.
I appeal now for the grandmothers. Frequently we do not realise how important older people and grandmothers are in certain cultures, particularly the West Indian culture. Here, of course, it is very often a question of hiving them off into old people's homes, where they lead lonely lives, but they have a more positive rôle in the culture of the West Indies, where very often they are the bearers of the moral values of the whole family. Therefore, on both compassionate and social grounds, there are very strong reasons for admitting this part of the family with the others.
I therefore hope that the Home Secretary will take positive steps to see that immigration officers interpret the rules with which they are provided with compassion and humanity, because it has come to my attention that this is not always done. I would say that the vast majority of the officers do what they can in a very difficult position, and I hope that the Home Secretary and the Under-Secretary will keep these matters under constant review.
What I have just been saying is illustrative of a principle that I believe is accepted on both sides of the Committee; that once Commonwealth citizens are here they must be treated as equal—equal not only as regards family rights but also equal before the law, because it is a basic principle of our law that no citizen should be deprived of life or liberty without having recourse to the courts.
I would merely allude here, in passing, to the question of deportation. Up to now the position has been that deportation of a Commonwealth citizen can only take place after a recommendation from a court—deportation following conviction for an offence carrying a sentence of imprisonment. I hope that that principle will be preserved in any revision of that law that may come about, because if there is a question of deporting someone who has entered illegally, the issue of whether that entry has been legal or illegal should be decided by a court and should not be an executive decision of the Home Secretary.
I pass to the third major criticism of the Government's attitude in the White Paper, which is that in approaching the problem the Government show no sign of being seized of the urgency of the problem of integrating immigrants into our community. And by the word "integrating" I mean taking positive social measures so that they enjoy equality of rights, not only in theory but in fact. I hope that we on this side of the Committee will continue to press the Government to take action in this sphere.
It may be that by cutting down on the number of immigrants, a beneficial side effect, though not a necessary purpose, would be that it would be easier to take positive measures for those who are already here, but what would be quite wrong would be to cut down numbers and

to do virtually nothing to improve the living conditions of those already here. That is an extraordinary position, and one into which the Government have got. We are building up ghettoes in our great cities in which immigrants are trapped and are unable to get out. This is exactly the situation that has caused so much trouble in the United States, and race riots in places as far apart as Los Angeles and New York. They are not only ghettoes but insanitary and overcrowded ghettoes, because if some mad planner were choosing the areas of Britain least suited for an influx of immigrants he could not have done better than to choose the areas into which the immigrants have gone.
The only solution is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dorking (Sir G. Sinclair) has suggested, to treat them really as development areas. That would accord with our philosophy on this side of the Committee, which is to give social aid which is limited to the areas that need it most. We can improve ghettoes and make them more comfortable, but that is not enough. There is, of course, nothing wrong with living in a ghetto if one wishes to. What is wrong—

Mr. Freeson: There is this constant use of the word "ghetto". There is no statistical evidence provided by Government Departments or the Centre of Urban Studies, which has done a good deal of work on this subject, to support the use of the word "ghetto," which means, as I understand it, that a majority of the people living in that particular district—and it must be a defined district—are people from abroad. That has been established by a study of districts, even down to the enuremation district level of 600, by the Centre of Urban Studies. I think that it does a lot of harm to use that word.

12.30 a.m.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I accept with great interest the intervention of the hon. Member, but certainly I think, without relying on statistics, from one's personal experience of visiting areas of immigration, one sees whole streets, roads and areas entirely occupied by coloured people—in North Kensington, for example. For the purpose of discussion one concedes the point made by the hon. Member, but if they are not ghettoes they approach ghettoes. We have to look to the future. There is a new generation growing up.
Many are born here and know no other country than this. They will not be content to be confined to an inferior position in society doing menial jobs and denied the opportunity of participating in the mobility which is one of the great achievements of our contemporary society. It is for that situation that the Government ought to be planning now. One of the great criticisms of the White Paper is that it shows itself entirely oblivious of this problem which is growing. We should be taking steps for improving the education and opportunities for advancement of all our citizens whatever their colour. This would help to solve the colour problem because there is not so much prejudice because of the colour of people's skin but because of the cultural inferiorities associated in people's minds with colour, and that is the real cause of the problem.
All who have studied this problem know how difficult it is. I think that the feelings of ordinary men and women are not so much of prejudice as of confusion. In this position we can appeal to the worst in human nature and seek to exploit it for partisan advantage or we can seek the best and try to fashion a solution in the national interest. It is our duty to take positive steps by legislation to improve the situation and back that up by an appeal to the tradition of generous social service and idealism which, fortunately, is so strong in this country. If we do that we shall evoke a response from the nation commensurate with the problem we face and the issues of human happiness involved.

Dr. David Kerr: I had the fortune last year to follow the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) in a similar debate. On that occasion I was forced, not at all reluctantly, to pay tribute to what he said. I pay tribute today again. He obviously finds the same difficulty vis-à-vis his Front Bench as I find vis-à-vis my Front Bench. He has gone out of his way to avoid making any accusations, and I promise that I shall do the same.
There is no shortage of sincerity in this place; we are all sincere. The trouble, and this is the worst crime in politics, is that some of us are wrong. This, of course, is where we differ. The hon. Member has provided a few pegs on

which I can hang some comments. The question of ghettoes, referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, East (Mr. Freeson), is a matter about which there is some confusion. I should like to reinforce what was said about it. I think I would not be wrong in suggesting that the immigrant population in the constituency of the hon. Member for Chelmsford is small relative to that in the constituency which I represent. Although there are concentrations of immigrants in certain areas, they are not in ghettoes. In those areas of high concentration, the relationship between the immigrant and the host community is extraordinarily variable, but, most important, throughout the growth of the immigrant population in this country the predominant keynote has been one of tolerance. It has been one of grumbling and resentful tolerance sometimes, but it has been tolerance.
The question I put to the right hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Brooke), a former Home Secretary, who claimed that following the introduction of the Commonwealth Immigration Act, 1962, he had received reports from the police of an improvement in the relationship, is a question which no one has put to him. What was responsible for the breakdown which followed so shortly after that extravagant claim?
The other thing I wanted to comment on was the remarks of the hon. Member for Chelmsford about grandmothers. Grandma, in the West Indies even more than here, and I personally regret this, is the host to the children. There has been a lot of talk about the dependants of immigrants as though they were wasters and parasites coming into Britain to use our resources and contribute nothing. As long ago as 1961, at the time of the census, figures were brought to light showing that the number of immigrant women employed was significantly higher than the number of women who are born here. To talk about immigrants' dependants in a rather condescending way is characteristic of the Opposition, who are beginning to find that they need new targets for their arrogance and condescension and think they have an easy one in the immigrant population.
We have heard tonight from one hon. Member on the Opposition Front Bench, speaking in terms of the most offensive patronage. This is something which I


think must have some influence on the relationship between the host community and the newly-arrived community. The House of Commons has a great responsibility in influencing this relationship. I am wholly with the hon. Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt) when he claims that the vigorous campaign conducted by the Labour Party, when in Opposition, against the Commonwealth Immigrants Act made an important contribution to maintaining racial tolerance in this country when it was endangered by the views expressed by Conservatives, views that have continued to be expressed in the last year and have again found expression tonight.
The hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. Wise) produced his own Private Member's Bill tonight to expand the Commonwealth Immigrants Act. What a parlous piece of discrimination this was. But the keynote of the whole debate was set in its earliest stages when in the most glutinous speech I have yet had to tolerate from the Conservative benches, the right hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Thorneycroft) was forced to say, with what I could only describe as disarming honesty, that we were talking about a colour problem. We have not sufficiently stressed this. This is what we have been saying on this subject.

Mr. Thorneycroft: One day the hon. Member may learn that it is no more an insult to a man to say that he is coloured than to say he is a Jew or has got a red head. When the hon. Member learns that lesson he will know more about tolerance.

Dr. Kerr: The right hon. Member must not try to teach me tolerance. I can teach him about being called a Jew. I have been subjected to this and this is why I have been so passionate about the coloured immigration problem. The word "Jew" in a certain context is meant as an insult and I have been subjected to it. Let the right hon. Member not try to teach me lessons about this. I learnt them at a very early age. The same is true about the coloured immigrant. When the right hon. Member for Monmouth proclaims that he is talking about the colour problem he is endorsing what so many of us have been saying since the White Paper was published.
This is a colour question. It is based on discrimination between coloured and white. The right hon. Member for Monmouth has endorsed that. That is what we continue to say, and that is why we are opposing by every means open to us the continuance of an Act which we opposed throughout its introduction and its extension on a basis which, despite the claims that research has been done for months, does not seem to me and many others to accord with the findings of that research, whether that research is conducted by sociologist Professor John Rex, the Institute of Race Relations, the Centre for Urban Studies or in the simple way that some of us with responsibility for immigrant communities conduct it—on the doorstep.
Let me tell the Committee one of the ways in which immigrant colour problems arise. On a rather depressed flatted estate in my constituency, a coloured family was rehoused. The borough council—I am not ashamed to say this—slid it badly and had not prepared for it. It thrust a coloured family into the block of flats, overcrowded already with many people who had been on housing lists for a long time. Inevitably, that caused resentment. All credit to the three political parties. We all came together on the tenants' association platform and decried this sort of discrimination. I wonder whether the Conservative Party in my constituency would be able to do that this week in view of what has been said from the Opposition Front Bench about colour problems. The three of us agreed that there should be no colour discrimination. When I went back to the flats a month later, an elderly lady, a neighbour of the coloured family, answered the door. In reply to my inquiry, put as discreetly as I could—"How are you getting on with your coloured neighbours?"—she said, "Oh, they are lovely. We often pass the time of day". This is the way in which simple sorts of education can help personal relationships.
No one knows this better than my hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, East because he has been doing it on the doorstep in a way which should be an example to any of us. I wonder how many houses with immigrant families inside them have been entered by the


right hon. Member for Monmouth. Perhaps I need not have asked the question. because in succession to all that has been said previously he can claim, I am sure. that some of his best friends are immigrants. This has been said before, and perhaps it is not inopportune that the right hon. Member for Monmouth should come to the Dispatch Box and make his rather unnecessarily condescending remark at a time, Mr. Lever, when I am proud to think that a fellow Jew is occupying the Chair in this Committee.
I think that I should not apologise to the Committee for disturbing the even tenor of this debate. It is a debate which has made me angrier than any which has preceded it in the past year during which I have had the honour to serve here. I make no apology for not adopting the rather sweet and benign attitude of the hon. Member for Chelmsford. I think that this is something to get deeply angry and passionate about, and I do not apologise. Nor do I share the view, which is held very sincerely by some of my colleagues, that this is a non-party matter, that this can be discussed across the benches. There is, of course, a welcome identity of view between myself and some of my hon. Friends and people like, if I can claim him as a friend, the hon. Member for Chelmsford or some hon. Members who, alas, are not here but should be occupying the Liberal benches. Of course, there is a certain to and fro. But what bedevils and bewilders us is the strange coming together of the Front Benches. I have said that there is no shortage of sincerity. Who on earth could accuse an hon. Member like the Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department of insincerity? He is the sweetest one we have ever had, and will be welcome to take a glass of water with me whenever he likes. [An HON. MEMBER: "Coloured water?"] No, plain.
This is a debate which should never have started off on a cross-party-and-let-us-all-be-gentlemanly basis. There is nothing gentlemanly about a principle which divides people, as the right hon. Member for Monmouth has said, on the basis of colour. Some of us have been through it and we have been divided. Let me say frankly to the Committee that it was not so many years ago that my grandfather found it necessary to change

his name from Kerstein to Kerr. I am beginning to wonder whether I should not blazen it forth and change my name back again. It is not a matter for pride in the tolerance of this country that views such as we have heard could be expressed.
I charge the Opposition, not my Front Bench, for leading this country to an attitude of colour discrimination. I charge the Opposition for the fact that they have never repudiated the unhealthy views, to put it at its kindest, promulgated by some of their newly found colleagues. I charge the Opposition for a further extension for this kind of discrimination. I repudiate it with a passion which I did not think I had and I am not ashamed of it.

12.45 a.m.

Mr. Harold Gorden: The speech which we have just heard has been in line with many from the benches opposite attacking my right hon. and hon. Friends for what happened a year or two ago when this Act was brought into being. One only has to read the speeches made then and the attacks made on my hon. Friends by the party opposite to realise that things have not changed very much. Fair enough, the back-benchers have been consistent in their arguments against my party. The attacks came not least from the Labour Members of Parliament from Birmingham, particularly the hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Denis Howell). Today I was reading some of the scurrilous things he was saying about my party and myself because of the Act to control immigration. Of course, it is obviously convenient for him not to be here tonight. He knows that some of the things he said then could not stand up in view of the action of the Government. of which he is a member, in continuing this control.
There has been one very sincere speech, that from the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot). Quite clearly he put the whole responsibility for continuing the Act on his own Front Bench. Other hon. Members have tried to skirt around this by attacking my party, but the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale said quite clearly that he was attacking his own Front Bench. But the hon. Members who share his view do not propose to go into the Lobby tonight against their own Front Bench.

Mr. Heiler: Surely my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) was arguing against our Front Bench because it was accepting the arguments of the Opposition Front Bench.

Mr. Gurden: This is perfectly true. I am pointing out that it is most unfair to attack my party in this way. The Government could have let the Act die. It could be forgotten and abandoned but for the Government's action in continuing it for another year.

Mr. Brian Walden: Can the hon. Gentleman say what he would say in Birmingham if the Act were allowed to elapse like that?

Mr. Gurden: Of course I would oppose such an action, but at least that would be consistent, for I have always taken this attitude, as the hon. Gentleman knows, quite unlike himself and his hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) who clearly admitted that he had changed his mind on this issue. I still think that control is necessary and I congratulate the Home Secretary on tackling this matter fearlessly.
We have now reached a stage when, but for a few hon. Members on the back benches opposite, it is generally agreed that more control is necessary. Further, we have reached the stage when it is generally agreed that more stringent control is necessary if we are to accept the White Paper and the evidence of the Home Secretary and the view that on present figures another half a million immigrants will be added to the present number in the next ten years—a conservative estimate.
We are thus moving slowly but surely to greater control and we must acknowledge the work of the Home Secretary in bringing forward the additional measures of the White Paper. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman said, the present difficulties arise mainly from illegal entry and the enormous number of dependants. Having reached the very small figure of 8.000 immigrants a year, is it not time to call a halt for a couple of years in order to allow some of the dependants to come in rather than admit more voucher holders? We have got the figure down bit by bit—both parties have contributed to this—and today the figure was given as being 7,500. We must be approaching

the time when a complete ban could be imposed for a year or two to enable recovery to be made.
Coming from Birmingham, I cannot let the debate pass without adding to what has already been said about the strain on education and housing. The Socialist-controlled local authority in Birmingham does not agree with the Government's recommendation about spreading the load and does not accept that immigrant children must be spread out. However, whatever happens in any local education authority area, it is generally admitted that the strain on educational facilities is enormous. I agreed with the Joint Under-Secretary when he pointed to the stresses and said how they justified further control for this if for no other reason.
As my hon. Friends have said, it is not the fault of the immigrants that the housing situation is as it is. It is not the fault of the immigrants that these services are so severely strained. It is the fault of Parliament. Through the years the controls have never been early enough or strong enough. We must accept this. I would like to know from some hon. Gentlemen opposite who are opposing their own Front Bench how many people they would let into the country. How many do they propose that this country can take? Another million, another 10 million or 50 million? There are that many people ready to come in.

Mr. Freeson: Another 50 million waiting on the doorstep?

Mr. Gurden: There is nothing to suggest that the figure would be exaggerated at all. The hon. Gentleman may he making a speech in these terms and I would like him to tell me what is the figure he would allow into the country. He does not agree with anything that his own Front Bench has said: he does not agree with anything that my Front Bench has said about control. Would the hon. Gentleman tell us the figure and then we shall know where he stands?

Mr. Rose: Surely the point is that the hon. Gentleman is arguing for restriction of only one group of immigrants. What about the number of other immigrants coming in from other sources? Is he applying his argument to those?

Mr. Gurden: To all immigrants.

Mr. Freeson: I will deal with the point which was just thrown across the Chamber to me in the course of my remarks. I want to start by expressing my dismay at most of the speech that we had from the Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department. This is not to question his sincerity but it is to question the value of the content of the speech. It is not good enough to stand in this Committee, or on a public platform, and make exaggerated and passionate statements about the country "bursting at the seams", or about "floods" of people about to come in if we do not impose tighter controls, or to say that the social services are going to break down, and to use this kind of exaggerated language if we are trying to deal with the problem sensibly, rationally and humanely.
Nor is it good enough to introduce a number of statistics which are very questionable indeed, not only in themselves but in the context in which they are used. I intend to pursue further one of the figures given by the Joint Under-Secretary dealing with the intake of children into a particular education authority. I intend to take it up with the Department of Education and Science because I do not accept it as being an accurate figure. It was the example of an area in this country receiving 300 additional children per month—which produces 3,600 children per year. I would be most interested to learn what local education authority, divisional area or whatever, is experiencing such an influx of children additional to its present population.
The reason why I stress this in my introductory remarks is because well-meaning though they may be, either in terms of the subject about which the speech was made, or in terms of trying to score points in debate, these are the kind of statements, exaggerations and misuse of statistics which add to the difficulty of understanding the problems facing the country, and add to the difficulty of achieving sound integration. It is this kind of so-called information which is picked up by people outside of this Chamber and thrown around the country in conversation, speeches and articles, and which adds to the misunderstanding and distortion of the true situation which we have in our towns.
The most interesting thing about tonight's debate is that, with one exception only, every speech on this side of the Committee has been critical of the Government's policy, and every speech on the other side of the Committee has been in support of that policy, as reflected in the continuation of the Commonwealth Immigrants Act and in the tighter controls and the greater restrictions proposed in the White Paper.
l.0 a.m.
What is more, we are now reaching the situation—we have seen it tonight—which has been forecast by those of us who have been expressing concern about the Government's attitude to race relations during the past year. Speaker after speaker on the other side of the Committee has said, "We thank the Government for doing what they are doing or what they are going to do. We regret very much indeed that they are delaying certain very restrictive legislation"—legislation which will be a serious interference with the civil liberties of the subject—"but what you have done and what you intend to do is not enough." Various suggestions have been made; for example, that no more dependants should be admitted, that there should be no more immigrants allowed into the country, only male workers should be allowed in, and so on.
Let there be no mistake; although the Government may think that they have won the day and have calmed the situation, that they have cut across party politics because they have retreated steadily over the past 12 months in the face of what we have had from the party opposite, from now onwards there will be a very vociferous minority putting down more Questions on the Order Paper month after month. There will be speeches containing the kind of suggestions that we have heard from the hon. Members for Rugby (Mr. Wise) and Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Gurden). Do the Government think that we have now lost sight of this kind of conflict in the House and throughout the country? If they do, they are living in a fools' paradise.
One of my great moments in this House was when I heard the attack, which was so strongly criticised by hon. Members opposite, made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on the hon. Member


for Smethwick (Mr. Peter Griffiths), and on the Front Bench opposite who refused to dissociate themselves from the kind of filthy campaign which was waged in Smethwick. Smethwick was the political trauma which hit this country and this House.
I was even more thrilled when I heard my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister speak at the Labour Party Conference which followed the election and use these words with reference to racialism:
… our hands must be clean. And in your name I have condemned and will condemn every so-called Labour Club which operates colour discrimination and every group of misguided workers who try to operate colour prejudice in their working relationships.'He hath made of one blood all nations to dwell upon the earth.' This Labour Party of ours is more than a political organisation; it is a crusade, or it would be better that it did not exist.… Never in our history has Britain stood so greatly in need of the principles which our faith can generate.
I still believe in those words. But they are not reflected in the White Paper nor in the steady retreat that we have seen on the Front Bench against the kind of nasty Parliamentary Questions and speeches which have been heard in this House and in the country from certain Members of the Conservative Party.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary challenged us earlier, understandably, because he thought that we were questioning the Government's sincerity. He thought that we were questioning the attitude of mind which still underlay their thoughts on race relations in the light of the White Paper. This is not what we were intervening about. Let there be no cavilling about this. We have been told by certain hon. Members opposite, and by others—and my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) underlined it well—that there has not only been a change of mind, but that there has been a retreat from principle. I shall not play about with words. This has been a retreat from principle.
I could understand it if we had had sound and detailed argument tonight from the Minister to support the policy as reflected in the White Paper, which will tighten up and extend what has been done under the Commonwealth Immigrants Act. I would have understood it even better had the White Paper applied some kind of factual material to the presentation of its proposals. The interesting thing, however, is that there has

not been one argument in the White Paper. There is a great dearth of facts because—I repeat what I have said, both outside the House and inside it at Question Time—they have not been collected by Government Departments. They have not undertaken the right kind of reports or research to get understanding of the problems—not this so-called great problem with a capital "P", but the problems involved in integration in areas of bad housing and social conditions. If they had had the facts, they could have given them in the White Paper.
Since the publication of the White Paper, we have seen a more solid body of information being prepared by the Young Fabians, by the Bow Group and by the Liberal Party Study Group on this issue, in the documents they have published, than the Government could produce in the White Paper. That is astonishing, but it leads us all the more to question the kind of policy which we are being asked to support.
I am under no illusion. The policy will go forward. The Government have given way to some degree, and we must not belittle the importance of the delaying measures that are being taken with regard to the legislation originally proposed in the White Paper. We must not belittle this, but it will take a long, hard slog—a matter not of weeks or, perhaps, months, but, it may be, years—before we can once again get some rational thinking and soundly-based principles introduced into our public policy-making in this field and before we can get away from the kind of emotional language which we have been getting more and more frequently from Ministers, as well as from hon. Members opposite, about the "floods" of immigrants which must be stemmed because our social services are "reaching breaking point". That is the kind of language used by responsible Ministers and which was used by certain hon. Members opposite when the 1962 Act was mooted. It was the kind of language that we deplored from the Labour benches in the House of Commons and throughout the country.
The only reason to be given by the Government for the cut-down, the severe restriction and, indeed, the imposition of the quota ceiling on Commonwealth immigrants was that given by the Leader of the House in making his statement on


2nd August, when he said that the White Paper measures were necessary because
there is a limit to the number of immigrants that this small and overcrowded country can absorb."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd August, 1965; Vol. 717, c. 1058.]
I may well come back to that a little later, but I should like to remind the Committee of what some of the Ministers in the present Government have had to say in answer to it. For example, we heard from the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations that
We on this side are clear on our attitude towards restricted immigration. I think I speak for my right hon. and hon. Friends by saying that we are categorically against it"— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th December, 1958; Vol. 596, c. 1576.]
What did the hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Denis Howell), now "Minister for Sport" in the Department of Education and Science, say? He wanted "the open-door policy, not least for moral and ethical reasons".
The Minister without Portfolio described the Commonwealth Immigrants Bill as
a distasteful, bad and unnecessary Bill—an unjustifiable Bill.
He said:
It betrays one of our most cherished traditions, the tradition of admitting citizens of the British Commonwealth to this country as of right, regardless of colour, creed or numbers." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th February, 1962; Vol. 653, c. 257.]
I could quote many other statements from members of the present Government on this issue, but time forbids.
In the course of the debates that took place on the Commonwealth Immigrants Bill, the Labour Opposition forced concessions from the Conservative Government; for example, such things as allowing common law wives in as dependants, a fairly free flow of part-time students who would be undertaking work as well as study, which is the common pattern in student life throughout the world. There were strong and fairly successful efforts to weaken the powers of deportation under the Bill so that they would not be extended as far as they were originally intended.
Those were the kinds of things that the Labour Opposition fought for; yet those three points which were considered so fundamental at that time are being

overturned if the White Paper is implemented in full. The very concessions which the Labour Party won in its hard political battle in 1962 are going to be overturned now that it has come to power. It cannot be for electoral reasons, as has been mentioned once or twice during the debate.
For we have had the hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath who said:
In a Christian country it is not the job of a political leadership to decide its first priority on the basis of electoral advantage. The only decent basis for decisions by the Government is that of ethics and morality.
The Minister of Defence in the present Government had this to say about political popularity. He said:
We on these benches … who have spoken against the Bill know that it was an unpopular fight from the point of view of the bulk of public opinion in this country, and I do not think that anyone who has opposed the Bill has been unconscious of the fact that he may pay personally or through his party some political penalty for it. … This has been a real example of political leadership, and it has paid off in the resultant effect on public opinion."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th February, 1962; Vol. 654, c. 1269.]
My hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt) referred to that earlier. It was a fact that public opinion was being improved as a result of the stand taken at that time against the Tory Party and the Commonwealth Immigrants Bill.
What did the Attorney-General in the present Government say about the Bill? He said:
Our law does not know and never has known any distinction between British subjects in respect of race or colour … it is about the most depressing Parliamentary development for a very long time.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th December, 1961; Vol. 1650, c. 1240.]
If he said that in 1961, what are we to say about the White Paper in 1965? Is it more depressing or less depressing than that very sad parliamentary development in 1961 to which the Attorney-General referred?
I am going to continue with some quotations from speeches, because it is necessary to remind members of the Government of what they said firmly and strongly, and what we thought as back benchers they believed.
Referring to part-time students, the Minister without Portfolio said:
Students ought not to be penalised because they are poor. There ought not to be


provision which merely enables those students to come who can afford full-time education. We want to encourage students like those who have been coming here who have managed to combine the earning of a livelihood with devoting their spare time to profitable and useful study … because they are the kind of individuals we want to encourage."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th February, 1962; Vol. (53, c. 3741
What do the Government say to that idea, in the light of their White Paper?
In relation to the point which was made much of by the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas), the Under-Secretary of State for Colonial Affairs said:
I also consider that there should be an absolute right for mothers and fathers to come and join their children who have settled in this country. The principle of family life and its sanctify should be respected in a Bill such as this. We hear the most unctuous sentiments from Ministers of the Crown—from the Home Secretary, the Minister of Education and others —about the need to cherish Christian ideals. Honour thy father and thy mother '. That should appeal to the Government. They should give us an absolute assurance that people will not be separated from their mothers and fathers."—[Orricint. REPORT, 5th December, 1961; Vol. 650, c. 13071
What is going to be the position under the White Paper? Are the mothers and fathers of people who have migrated to this country to be given the absolute right for which the Front Bench Labour Party spokesmen asked at that time, or are they to be denied it? The White Paper suggests that they will be denied it. I still hold the view that these people should have that right, and I hope that Members of the Government still hold it and that they will think again about the contents of the White Paper.
1.15 a.m.
I have a very good reason for raising this issue. As my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of States knows, I have personal experience of a very sad case which tooks months to fight through and get agreement to allow a prematurely retired Anglo-Indian couple to join their children in this country. The children were capable of looking after them, and they had good living accommodation available for their parents, but they and I had great difficulty in getting the matter settled, and I have no doubt that other hon. Members have had experience of similar cases.
The statements which I have quoted were made in 1962, only three short years

ago. What has happened since then? We are entitled to know, and the White Paper or the Minister should tell us what has happened. We should be given this information. We are entitled to have a properly argued case presented to this House and to the country, but we are not getting it. All that we have got—and I have been attacked for saying this elsewhere, but I say it again now—is what I can only describe as a shoddy White Paper.
It proposes measures which, as recently as the end of May of this year, two months before the White Paper was published, the Home Secretary described as
drastic and unpleasant, 'and' inherently repugnant to the whole concept of Commonwealth.
Is it surprising that innocent backbenchers like myself stick to the views expressed in May. As my right hon. and learned Friend said, the White Paper is a repugnant document. It has not changed in two months, or in six months. The measures it contains today, and which my right hon. and learned Friend and my hon. Friend are defending, are the measures which my right hon. and learned Friend attacked in May. I agree with what he said then. Does he agree with himself now?
This change of policy has gone almost unexplained, either here or at the Blackpool Conference. Nor has it been explained in the three or four speeches which Ministers have made on the subject in different parts of the country. The only explanation that we have had on the subject was that of my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Foley) who, as the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Economic Affairs, has a special responsibility in this matter. Speaking at Bradford in October he said that "the only reason" for the changes outlined in the White Paper was the widespread prejudice that had grown up in this country. That was not said at the Blackpool Conference, nor has it been said in this House.
We have been told about housing difficulties, about the social services being overstrained and reaching breaking point, and about the "flood" of people waiting to come here if we keep the doors as wide open as they have been, but the junior Minister with special responsibility in this field—not an ordinary back-bencher like


myself—said that the "only reason" for the changes outlined in the White Paper was the widespread prejudice that had grown up in this country.
I believe that it was one of the Joint Under-Secretaries of State at the Home Department who said that the real need was for a breathing space, a pause. There is nothing about a breathing space or a pause in the White Paper. We have had no statement in the House that it is intended to run this policy for one year. two years, 18 months, three years, or some other period of time. We are not told that it is to provide a breathing space.
It is rather interesting to note that that kind of phrase was used by Mr. Butler, as he then was, when he was the Minister responsible for the Commonwealth Immigrants Bill which was introduced in 1961. He said that it was necessary to have a breathing space, but nearly four years have passed since then, and we still need a breathing space to deal with race relations problems. The odd thing—or is it so odd; it is a sad and tragic thing—is that the public attitude to race relations in this country is much worse than it was twelve months ago. Make no mistake about it, this Parliament has a grave responsibility in this matter, and that includes every hon. Member of the House. In so far as the Government should be giving a lead in this kind of situation, the Government have the main responsibility. They have failed in it.
Other reasons have been given, of course, which have been contradicted by the statement about the only reason being a high level of prejudice. There has been much talk of evasion. In fact, the Prime Minister himself, as well as the Joint Under-Secretary of State at Black-pool, stressed this as being one of the two reasons for the White Paper—

Mr. George Thomas: Minister of State.

Mr. Freeson: I beg my hon. Friend's pardon—Minister of State.
This was given as one of the two reasons. There was no impression there of prejudice being the reason: the only reason was that there was a threat of a social explosion of some kind, to which I will return in a moment. The Prime Minister spoke of a social explosion and of widespread evasion.
I challenge the figures which are given constantly in the House and elsewhere. I do not believe that they are based on a proper analysis of immigration in this country. I must give some credit—probably the only credit I will give—to the right hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Thorneycroft), who earlier tonight mentioned the fact, to which little attention has been paid in the rest of the debate, that by far the highest level of evasion, and the most quickly rising, is to be found not among citizens of the new Commonwealth countries, but among those from the older Commonwealth countries.
But can any Minister stand up and say that it is because of a high level of evasion from the older Commonwealth countries that the White Paper was presented? We know that this is not the reason. Yet the Home Secretary himself, in answer to a Parliamentary Question which I put down much earlier this year referred to a figure of 10,000 from the new Commonwealth and not to 15,000 during the same period of the past two years or so, representing evasion by citizens of the older Commonwealth countries. Why not a White Paper on that evasion? are we really concerned with evasion as such, or is it, as so many hon. Members have said, that we are concerned with coloured people? At least let us be honest about it. After all these years, have we suddenly, between last October and this November, come near to "bursting at the seams"?
The Labour Party did not go to the country on the proposals outlined in the White Paper. Let us be honest about it. Many of us did not like even what was mentioned in the manifesto, but accepted it as part of a broad pattern of policy which is negotiated and discussed in a democratic movement, which then goes to the country on it. There was nothing in that manifesto indicating the interference with civil liberties and the various other measures of restriction proposed in the White Paper.
There was nothing in the manifesto like the Home Secretary's statement in February this year, when there was a great evasion scare aroused by hon. Members of the party opposite—including the then Leader of the Opposition —and the Government reacted promptly by making a special statement in the House.
My hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, West pointed out earlier that he and I have been living with this problem for the past eight, nine or 10 years, but we did not produce the shoddy ideas contained in that statement and in the White Paper. We have never said that people must be deported with-cut due process of the courts: we have never believed that this was the answer to the problem. Nor did we go round fie schools mixing up definitions of immigrant children, non-English speaking children and children born to immigrant Parents.
To this moment—and we have had no answer from the Under-Secretary tonight—nobody in this country knows what the Department of Education and Science mean when they talk about "immigrant children". One gets one answer from a civil servant, one from the Ministry—when one checks through a local education officer—and we have had another attempt from the Government in the Committee tonight.
One thing is quite clear, whatever the definitions. about the Government's policy—there are children who have been and will be born in Britain, who, by that famous, or infamous, or muddleheaded—let us forget the first two and call it muddleheaded—circular, will be considered as immigrant children. How far do we go in this respect in bastardising the English language?
As far as I know, an immigrant is someone who is coming here to settle, and not a child who is born here. If that were not the case, I wonder how many parents of hon. Members might be classified as immigrants because their parents came from Ireland, Europe or elsewhere. According to the definition in the Ministry of Education's circular, my parents would have been classified as immigrants, although born and bred here. This is a disgraceful and stupid state of affairs. This is the kind of thing on which we are basing our White Paper. This is the kind of nonsense being put out as national policy to local education committees and officers.
Is it any wonder that the Government and the Ministry are not clear about what they want to do, that people throughout the country at local authority level and among the public generally are muddled and confused about the aims of

the Government? Is it any wonder that people should be confused about the attitude they should adopt to the various social problems which are the background to the whole question of immigration?
Let us come down to the real facts The real cause—and this has been mentioned by some hon. Members and rejected by others—of what is involved in the White Paper and what has been going on recently is, from the Government's point of view, fear, too much attention being paid to prejudice and a great deal of muddled thinking. Those are the three factors involved, and I do not give preference to any one of them.
We have had no evidence, from the White Paper or elsewhere, that there is a real understanding of the problems of Commonwealth immigration and that a proper study of those problems has been made. There has been a steady retreat under pressure, from the other side, from their friends outside and from much worse people. Every time we move in the direction of the Party opposite, whether or not we like to admit it, we move in the direction of the racialist and fascist groups. They are the groups who, above all, are pleased about this and would like to go further. They are not concerned with the problems of immigration but merely with racialism and their distorted ideas.
Every time we move in that direction and every time the more liberal hon. Members of the Conservative Party move towards their backwoodsmen they themselves, the backwoodsmen, move further to the right on this issue. Are we to do that? Are we to be muddied? Is that not what has been happening in the past year? It is. We have been muddied, just like the best people in the party opposite have been muddied by the worst people in it. I do not want to be muddied. Nor do the vast majority of people inside and outside the Labour Movement want to be muddied.
We may make mistakes, including myself. I am sure that I have made mistakes in the sphere of race relations in my constituency in the past and I have no doubt that I must learn by my mistakes. But I am going to do my best to make sure that none of those mistakes are made as a result of cringing to racialists. I will probably regret my mistakes, but I will


learn by them—but they will not be made for the wrong reasons, which is what has been happening in the past 18 months.
I am not suggesting that it is racialist to argue for the right to control immigration—provided always that, first, such control is non-discriminatory in the racial sense. There is no principle involved in such control if it is non-discriminatory, but there is a fundamental principle involved when the control is racially discriminatory.
1.30 a.m.
I am sure the Government are not motivated by racialist ideas. However, no amount of pleading can alter the fact that the actual controls are racially discriminatory. A ceiling is being imposed and there are restrictions on one class of immigrant and not on the whole range. That is the first condition. The second is that any controls are consistent with economic efficiency. Third, provided they are really related to our social capacity to admit. Fourth, provided that there is a genuine regard for civil liberties in any such controls, and finally, provided also that the least possible restraint, and not the most, is introduced, commensurate with the needs of administration. We did not get a single sign of this from the other side, not even from the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas). I regret to say that even he could not repeat what he said last year in his maiden speech; that he favoured evasion because it showed a liberal application of the immigration laws.
Those are the five conditions I lay down. Can it be said that the White Paper and the continued application of the Act are non-discriminatory racially? Can it be argued that it is consistent with economic efficiency and related to the state of our social capacity; that it has due regard to civil liberties, and imposes the least possible restraint rather than the greatest? None of these things can be argued in relation to the White Paper and the controls proposed in it.
The striking feature of the whole of this debate—I do not mean just this debate tonight but the debate over the last two or three months since the publication of the White Paper in August—is that no case for a reduction has been made by the Government. There have been

assumptions and generalisations, but no case has been argued in any particular detail for any kind of reduction. We are given a figure of 8,500. With others, I ask: how do we arrive at that figure? I am not concerned with the particular figure—if it had been 10,500 or 15,000 or any other figures I would not have been concerned. What I am concerned about is a discriminatory quota ceiling and that no properly argued economic or social case has been made for any particular figure.
We were told by the Leader of the House that it is
reasonable at this stage, taking into consideration the ability of this country to absorb more immigrants."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd August, 1965; Vol. 717, c. 1063.]
But the interesting thing is that this figure is about half the number of those who had been coming in up to the time when the White Paper was published. The White Paper also says, however, that in the past only about three-quarters of the vouchers issued have been taken up. If this experience continues —it may not, but if it does—it will mean that only about 5,500 people will enter this country on work vouchers, and not the 8,500 which is the top limit.
That is one figure one has, and I have another jotted down here. I am sorry that the Minister of State has left us, because this is a figure which she herself has quoted on two occasions in public discussion of the White Paper—at the Blackpool Conference and a little later in a television interview—when she described the problem as being one of five dependants for every person allowed into the country. The White Paper says three. A few weeks later a Minister of the Crown says that it is five. Is it the figure in the White Paper or the figure of five? If we are to get these exaggerations or mistakes they will affect public debate.
Hon. Members have given figures earlier which show quite clearly the discriminatory practice we shall embark on. With reference to this fact, we shall have more South Africans coming in, now that South Africa has left the Commonwealth, on work permits than immigrants from any one Commonwealth country on A vouchers, which are a similar kind of work permit system. I shall not pursue such facts as that on the basis of last year's experience and that of the year before, we shall have something like


8,000 Spaniards coming in on work vouchers, which is near to equalling the whole of the vouchers issued to all Commonwealth immigrants. These things indicate what some of us believed, that riot a great deal of thought has been given to the principles applied.
I shall put one or two specific questions in regard to the proposals in the White Paper about which I am rather disturbed. I shall not attempt answers, but put the questions and hope that we shall be given the answers tonight or on another occasion. I should like to know if and when the Home Secretary made any recommendation to the Cabinet for a marked reduction in the number of work vouchers to be issued to Commonwealth immigrants. The reason I ask is that some of us have the feeling that he or the Government had come to the conclusion that there should be a marked reduction some time before the Mountbatten Mission reported. If that is so we are entitled to know. We have been told that the decision was taken on the basis of that Report, but some of us think that the decision was taken long before the Mountbatten Mission reported.
We have asked, and I hope that one day we shall get the answer, why the Government arrived at the figure of 8,500. Hon. Members have referred to the fact that the National Plan estimates that by 1970 there will be a shortfall of 200,000 workers in this country. The Minister of Labour in a short intervention when the hon. Member for Chelmsford was speaking, suggested that this did not refer to unskilled workers. To the best of my recollection, the National Plan did not specify, but made a broad calculation of when the shortfall would be arrived at and the kind of industries which would suffer most, and it came to the grand total of 200,000. The experience of the building industry has been quoted and it has been suggested that at whatever level, skilled or unskilled, there is a continuing shortage of craftsmen. I know this from my experience in local government when trying to step up housing in my district. There is a considerable shortage and it seems we are going out of our way to encourage that shortage of craftsmen or potential trainees; for quite a number of Commonwealth immigrants have gone into the building industry.
There has been much loose talk tonight, as on previous occasions, about the housing problem. We had some recently from South London judging from newspaper reports about Lambeth. It happens that my area and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, West are growing twilight areas as described in the Lambeth report. In Birmingham and many other towns where large numbers of immigrants have settled this is the case. Hon. Members interested in local authority work know and their housing managers, architects, town planners and town clerks know that the kind of problems with which our areas are faced, and the need for housing and improvement in redevelopment and remaking the areas, are precisely the same as those which existed before the immigrants arrived in those districts. I make no bones about saying that they have not altered the problem in our districts. This is true of any major city in the country, despite the loose talk that goes on. There is only one answer to the housing problem in those twilight areas. It is to improve and speed slum clearance and development procedures which at present slow down the work of local authorities.
I am sure that local authorities do not use these powers for slum clearance and redevelopment programmes in some cases for fear of accusation by members of the public that they are rehousing immigrants. But this is important not just for immigrants. It affects the rest of the people—the native host population as well.
As I said in an intervention earlier, there are very few people living in actual ghetto districts in this country. In the vast majority of areas where one finds Commonwealth immigrants there are even larger numbers of the host community living there as well. If we are going to have our slum clearance programmes distorted for fear of public reaction against local authorities rehousing immigrants in the worst housing districts, then it should be remembered by the public that there are also thousands and thousands of the host community and their children suffering the slum conditions as well. Their rehousing is also held back. Race relations are essentially a community problem, the whole community and not just a minority.
It is probable that the number of immigrants coming into the building industry in the last 10 years have added more to the housing programme than the number of houses they occupy in the twilight areas of our towns. This is not something to be sneezed at. These immigrant building workers have made a major contribution at a time when there is a short supply of labour.
The general observations which I have been making were supported by the statements of evidence submitted to the Milner Holland Committee by the Centre of Urban Studies. This is the only organisation which has attempted to make some fairly precise demographic surveys of immigration. The bulk of the evidence supports the statements I have been making about the twilight areas not having been created by the immigrants. They were there already.
It is also shown that there is a movement of the immigrant population. Immigrants come and settle down well into the community far better than is suggested by many wild and loose statements made in the Press and sometimes in the House. Certainly, immigration must be planned in relation to the nation's economic and social capacity. But the White Paper makes no attempt to explain how the Government will assess Britain's capacity to absorb Commonwealth immigrants, nor does it explain why Commonwealth citizens have been singled out for quota limitation when other immigrants are not so restricted.
Some of the worst features of the aliens legislation are to be put in the Immigrants Act or are proposed in the White Paper. There is a ban on children aged between 16 and 18 joining their parents; entry conditions imposed include a time limit on the stay of students and others, there is registration with the police, deportation without due process of the courts. No one with respect for the rule of law or civil liberties will ever support any of this kind of legislation.
Let us hope that now the legislation is not contained in the Queen's Speech and now that the independent committee is to be set up, we have seen the end of the proposals; that they are dead and will not return to the House.
The Prime Minister's suggestion about an independent committee to examine the question of appeals does not in my view go far enough. The Home Secretary's power to deport or impose conditions should not be agreed. The only way in which people should be deported from this country should be through due process of the courts. Everyone should have the right to be represented where a decision to deport is being made, and have appeal rights as well. It is these powers which have caused the greatest concern to many of us. However, as I say, there is an indication that we shall not see them come to the House now as legislative proposals for debate.
1.45 a.m.
I could go on to deal with the question of integration proposals, which have been discussed at some length. I merely say that I do not consider that Part III of the White Paper, dealing with the integration side—it has been commended even by some people who have criticised the White Paper in other respects—can be described as particularly satisfactory.
I have made some reference to the paragraphs relating to the education circular and education policy. I only add at this stage that there is no indication in the White Paper nor Circular 7/65 that there will be any attempt by the Government to launch a major adult education campaign. But I consider this vitally important. If we are to continue to do the work of integrating the immigrants into the community, if we are to continue these powers, not to talk of extending them, and if at the same time we are going to justify this by talking about integration, we must launch a campaign for adult education. Also, we must take seriously the issue of the proper training of our teachers in colleges of education. These colleges are not providing sufficient facilities, if indeed they are providing any facilities, for the training of teachers in race relations, social anthropology and related matters.
As to employment—this will be a matter of particular concern to the Minister of Labour, who will be replying —one can only describe the paragraphs in the White Paper as complacent. None of us will be much wiser after reading in paragraph 51:
This complex issue is being tackled in a number of effective, if unobstrusive, ways.


It does not tell us what these "effective, if unobstrusive, ways" are. Nor are we told in the White Paper whether there is any conception of the extent or character of the discrimination being practised against immigrants or their children and what is being done in different parts of the country to act against this kind of discrimination.
To say, as the White Paper says on employment, that "there are indications that, in certain respects, discrimination still persists" is hardly an adequate description of the situation in which employment exchanges, in some instances at least, continue to mark some of their cards C.W. for coloured worker, when school leavers are discriminated against and youth employment officers, sometimes with the best will in the world, are having to accept the situation and not fight it, when promotion channels in industry and commerce are barred to immigrants and their children, when vacancies are being advertised to discriminate against coloured immigrants, and when the Minister of Labour is incapable of giving information when asked Questions in this Chamber on these subjects. I suggest that employment exchanges should refuse service to firms which persist in practising discrimination. This is some thing which even the Conservative Party said it would do. but it has been gone pack on in the White Paper. The Government should refuse contracts to firms which practise discrimination. They should legislate against discrimination in employment, as some of us urged at the lime when the Race Relations Bill was before the House.
I have already referred to housing. Here again, the White Paper fails badly and does not deal with the subject properly. Indeed, it hardly touches upon the subject in a way that is a genuine discussion of the issue. Not a single reference is made to the fact that large parts of the housing market are closed to immigrants. I would also refer to the private Act whereby Birmingham established control over multi-occupied houses. As one who before coming to the House and since has advocated the establishment of control areas in twilight districts, I would support any measures in that direction. I put these schemes forward to the Milner Holland Committee when I gave evidence some time ago. But there are certain

serious faults in the Birmingham Act which gives concern to those of us who have read the White Paper. Under the Act it is possible for the Birmingham Corporation to refuse permission—

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Member is now getting very wide of the matter we are discussing.

Mr. Freeson: I will accept your Ruling, Sir Samuel, but this was specifically referred to in the White Paper and has been the subject of the discussion tonight. I will not pursue it further save to say that there are certain aspects of that Act which give powers to the local authority which could be abused and which are unnecessary in implementing the idea of control areas.
The idea of special treatment for immigrants was rightly rejected. The White Paper says:
the sole test is the quality and nature of housing need without distinction based on the origins of those in need.
But what of local authorities who plan their slum clearance programmes so as to avoid rehousing immigrants? What investigations have been made about this? This can lead to English people as well as immigrants being delayed in getting decent housing.
One welcomes the strengthening of the National Committee and the establishment of voluntary liaison committees. However, a great deal of uncertainty exists about their precise relationship to the Government. There continues to be uncertainty about what Minister will be responsible. What is to be the relationship between these committees and Parliament and the Government? Will there be a Minister or a representative of a Minister on the National Committee or will it be the junior Minister from the Department of Economic Affairs? Or will there be a representative from the Ministry of Labour or the Department of Education and Science, or the Home Office? Will the committee report direct to the Prime Minister, or will it report to Parliament? Nobody knows.
There are other departments which are concerned like the Home Office, the Ministries of Education, Labour, Housing and Health. Where is the co-ordination to be? Is it still to be kept at junior Minister level or are we to have some


genuine Ministerial responsibility for policy? Nobody knows the answers to these questions, and it seems that no thought has been given to them. Will there be a direct line of communication between the local authorities and the appropriate voluntary bodies, through the National Committee to the junior Minister or some other Ministers, and thus to Parliament and the Government? None of these points has been settled since the White Paper was published, as I have discovered from inquiries I have made of those concerned. There will be further opportunities for further questions about integration, but there is a great need for more information on what is to be the basis of the work of the local voluntary bodies in welfare and education as recommended in the White Paper.
There will be a need for community development to be encouraged. We have tried some of these things in my area through our friendship council. Work needs to be done on individual relations between the immigrant and the host community where there are points of friction, in the home or anywhere else. We have tried to do this in my district. Investigation into discrimination in housing, employment and other related problems is needed locally. Above all, there is a need for these local liaison committees to concern themselves with civil liberties generally and with discrimination in public places and in housing. They must be encouraged to set an example to us, for we sorely need it. Racialism threatens us all and not just the immigrants. That is why some of us are so concerned about the deterioration in race relations which has gone on during the past year and which has been symptomatic in the production of the White Paper and its surrender under pressure from the Opposition and other quarters in the country.
I hope that I have said enough[Laughter.]—there will be other occasions when I shall say even more—to raise some fundamental doubts of principle about the practice being followed by the Opposition and the Government as well as others in the country. I urge the establishment of a high-powered Committee of Inquiry to pursue further genuine studies into the whole subject of

immigration and the various related problems. Only by establishing such a high-powered committee can we get the vast mass of information which we need and get a proper evaluation of that information and start to establish the right kind of policy making which we are so far lacking.
Meanwhile, in closing I want to repeat the five points which those of us who have been and will continue to be strong critics of the White Paper wish to see adopted as policy. First, we want an assurance that there will be no legislation as outlined in the White Paper originally; secondly, that there shall be established a full review of the alien and immigration law going further into the subject than the proposed independent committee on appeals procedure; thirdly, that there shall be established proper and permanent Departmental machinery for studying the background to immigration as a basis for policy making; fourthly, on the basis of that machinery and the basis of the work of the high powered committee of inquiry which I suggest, there shall be a review of the ceiling quota within a space of 12 to 18 months at most; fifthly, that meanwhile, particularly in the spirit in which so many hon. Members have spoken tonight, there shall be the most humane conduct of the controls which we still have with us, in the work of the Home Office and its immigration officials.

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: At this late hour I shall not endeavour to answer all the points made in the very powerful attack of the hon. Member for Willesden, East (Mr. Freeson) on his own Front Bench, which is capable of answering for itself. However, I should like to comment on the earlier speeches and take first that of the hon. Member for Wandsworth, Central (Dr. David Kerr) who was so indignant about the White Paper, especially, apparently, on the ground that he thought that it contained colour prejudice. I was rather surprised by his making that attack, especially in view of his story about his grandfather. I can assure him that racial prejudice there may be, but that prejudice against immigrants is not confined to prejudice against coloured immigrants by a very long way.

Mr. Buchan: The right hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Thorneycroft) said that the problem was precisely a colour problem.

Mr. Wilson: I am saying that it is not, and I will reinforce that statement by remarking that what made me contemplate speaking in the debate, which I had no intention of doing when I first came into the Chamber, was the speech of the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot).
Both he and I are immigrants, Celts it may be, but we each represent constituencies in countries other than our own. I know his present constituency well by reason of my previous job and I know that, because of his family connections, he knows all about Cornwall. I can assure hon. Members that racial prejudice is not confined solely to questions of colour, because both in Wales and Cornwall to this day there has not been complete integration between English and Celts. Certainly that is so in Wales, and I have no hesitation in saying that it is so in Cornwall also.
2.0 a.m.
There is a definite, known and recognised distinction between the English and the local population. A very interesting thing was said to me on one occasion by a coloured man in my constituency. We have a local coloured population which has been there for two or three generations. They are people who are descended from the old seamen of the sailing ships. Every sailing ship always had a few coloured men, even the warships. A number of those coloured seamen settled in the West Country, and there is one particular family which has been there for three or four generations. This man said to me that Cornwall was the best place for a coloured man to live because, he said, "I am no more of a foreigner than you are." There is a distinction which is well known there.
No one can talk to me about colour prejudice, because I think that I am probably the only Member present who has an Indian son-in-law. I have a grandson who is an Anglo-Indian. When one of my daughters proposed to marry an Indian I was a bit apprehensive. I have six other children and two other

sons-in-law, and I wondered what was going to happen. I give this as evidence —nothing happened at all. They all get on extremely well and it is no problem at all. If one faces this it just seems quite normal. This has happened and no problem has arisen.
A large number of people of a quite different origin coming into a country create problems in the schools, in housing and other matters which are mentioned in the White Paper. There are certainly strong feelings about it, and my feeling is that one has to tackle this thing by stages, not take too big a jump at a time, otherwise one creates a racial problem and causes a great deal of prejudice. For those reasons, I think that basically the White Paper and the previous Act are necessary and that a measure of control is desirable. I do not think we do any good by getting too excited about this. We tend to talk too much about racial prejudice.

Dr. M. S. Miller (Glasgow, Kelvin-grove): I shall not weary the Committee at this late stage by keeping it very long, but there are one or two points I would like to make. On Friday evening I visited a flat in my constituency to have an informal chat with some Nigerian undergraduate and post-graduate students. As I entered the room in which the informal talk was to take place, the music I heard was a Mozart concert on the Third Programme. So much for the feeling of the possibility of coloured people being under-cultured, which was voiced as a possibility by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas). He thought that very often some people in this country felt this way. I hasten to add that shortly afterwards, when the concert was ended, they switched on the television to watch the Miss World contest, which I thought was a very normal reaction, too.
I have noticed that in the debate that there has been a certain amount of apologetic talk, a certain patronising attitude, and there has also been something of an insulting outlook as far as this problem is concerned. I want to put to the Committee the point of view that the Commonwealth immigrants have a contribution to make to our society, quite apart from economic necessity. Surely


we do not feel in this country that we are the last thing, that everything that we do, that all our habits, all our customs are the absolute zenith of perfection which humanity has yet achieved? Can we not learn—are we not learning—from the Commonwealth immigrants whom we have in our community at the moment? Are we not learning new sounds from them, in music and language? Are we not learning something about colour from them—and I mean colour in every way, such as the colour of dress? Are we not learning from them things that we would never have learned, apart entirely from the economic advantage which they bring to us?
We ought to be prepared to pay something for this. We ought to be prepared to do something for people who are bringing these advantages to us. Commonwealth citizens come to this country because they wish to work here. Anyone who believes that they come to claim National Assistance has merely to inquire at the National Assistance Board offices to find out how untrue this is.
As I say, they have made a significant contribution to our economy. Think of what would happen, as has been said by many hon. Members, in medicine, nursing and transport if we did not have these Commonwealth immigrants. We have also a moral obligation to them. At one fell swoop the number of immigrants into the country is to be reduced to 8,500, in spite of the fact that there are jobs for more of them.
I am not sure what we are afraid of. Are we afraid that they will gather in huge numbers in areas and remain there? Surely the experience of other immigrant groups into this country has been that while they have congregated with people of their own kind to begin with, eventually they moved out and mixed with the rest of the community. I believe that the immigrant groups into this country have integrated, not assimilated. I do not believe that it is necessary for groups to assimilate. They have integrated into the community and have retained to a great extent many of their own customs—and why not? The Scots, the Welsh and Irish do the same

thing. When the Scots, the Welsh and the Irish moved out to other parts of the world they also retained their own identities in those parts. They retained their identities in Canada, the United States, New Zealand and Australia. They did not assimilate. They integrated.
We find there is a sudden attempt by the Government to out-Herod Herod, a clamping down too stringently on the conditions of entry for immigrants. I asked—and I was answered by my right hon. and learned Friend—what would happen if a natural disaster overtook a Commonwealth country, necessitating our receiving a large influx of immigrants from that country, such as happened with Tristan da Cunha. I was informed that facilities would be made available to admit people to this country from an area which met a similar fate. I did not receive a reply as to whether this would also apply to the possibility of a very large number of Commonwealth citizens requesting admission to this country from Rhodesia where also a devastating situation has occurred.
I should like my right hon. and learned Friend, when he replies, to say whether he would consider the possibility of making this necessity of clamping down a temporary one. There has been no indication of this, although, if we solve some of the problems which have been indicated as being the difficulties involved, I do not see why, at the end of a certain length of time, once those difficulties have been resolved, we do not revert to our previous position.
What I am concerned about is the moral values. I am concerned that we have an important and sincere obligation to our people from Commonwealth countries. I am also looking at it from a practical point of view. We are facing in the world today an eventual confrontation. I think that we are building up in the world to a situation in which the coloured and the non-coloured nations, or the coloured and the colourless nations, will face each other eventually and there will come a reckoning. I venture to suggest that we should be trying to build up in this country for the future as great a store of good will as we possibly can.

Mr. Gunter: Mr. Gunter rose—

Mr. Buchan: May I ask your guidance, Sir Samuel? I was about to speak and, as far as I know, the debate is not restricted in time.

The Chairman: The hon. Member is perfectly correct. We are in Committee.

Mr. Gunter: I hope to command the affection of the House by being very brief. The main purpose of my intervention, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary mentioned at the outset, is to say a few words about the introduction of the voucher system. Before doing that, however, I should like, in view of some of the comments which have been made from the benches behind me, to ask my hon. Friends to recognise that we can differ with equal sincerity.
There has been something a little lower than the best level of the House of Commons in the suggestion that some of us who defend the White Paper do so because, somehow, we are tainted with some form of racialism. As the Christian Gospel has been quoted, as well as morality and ethics. I should like to say, and I do so humbly and sincerely, that I defend my stand on the White Paper on the very standpoint of the Christian Gospel. If hon. Members quote the Gospel, as they have done, they had better also pay attention to other parts of it; and one of the most telling sentences in the whole of the Synoptic Gospels is
Lead us not into temptation".
If people consciously and deliberately create a situation in which circumstances may come which they cannot control, they are being tainted rather by self-righteousness than by taking their stand on the standpoint of the Christian Gospel.

Mr. Michael Foot: Does my right hon. Friend recall that the first people who, in debating these matters, raised the question of ethics, morality and Christianity were the leaders of the Labour Party, headed by the late Mr. Hugh Gaitskell, who attacked the Commonwealth Immigration Bill of 1962 on the ground that it was racialist, and, therefore, that those of us who have repeated that argument today had a very good precedent?

Mr. Gunter: There may he a precedent. I am dealing with tonight's debate, and I bitterly resent the un-Christian suggestion that some of us who believe that we ought not to allow circumstances to

arise that could create an explosion in this country are motivated by any form of racialism.
2.15 a.m.
I am convinced that we are right in paying attention to the dangers that we are in. There has been no denial at all about some of the problems with which we are confronted. The hon. Member for Willesden, East (Mr. Freeson) and the hon. Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt) can both talk very nicely, very justifiably and very sincerely about what has happened in Willesden, and I happen to know that some great work has been done. On the other hand, whatever may be the situation in Willesden, the situation in other parts of London, in the Midlands and in Bradford, is brimful of possibilities because of the housing situation.
It is not my desire to keep the House and dwell upon matters that have already been analysed in the field of education, but do not let us imagine for one moment that we serve any good purpose by sweeping these difficulties under the carpet. It cannot be done. We have to face them.
There is no question of racialism. The point that I am trying to make is that we should not allow the floodgates to be opened to the extent that we cannot contain the problem, and, in defending the White Paper, I hope that we can hold equally sincere views.
It was suggested that I might have something to say about vouchers, but, before I turn to that point, may I say a word about industry, because it is closely connected with it? The hon. Member for Willesden, East mentioned tensions in industry, and they are there. No one knows better than I do the tensions that are in industry at present. It is useless to dismiss them and say that it is merely a matter of education.
I want to use the example that the hon. Member himself suggested to me. He viewed with great disfavour the fact that managers of employment exchanges mark employment cards "C.W.". He condemned officials of my Ministry for presuming to put the letters "C.W." on cards. But this is the other side of the coin. They do it from a sense of Christian charity, because they know that if they send a man to a works he will be


humiliated, often not because the management wants to humiliate him but because the management knows that the men on the workshop floor will not accept him.

Mr. Heffer: Oh, dear.

Mr. Gunter: The hon. Member may say, "Oh, dear".

Mr. Heffer: I know something about it. I have worked with them.

Mr. Gunter: I must be careful here. The hon. Member knows full well that there are industrial disputes that arise today because white workers will not allow promotion to be given to a coloured man who is very often very competent indeed.
There are industrial tensions, and what we have to consider is how much we can contend with prejudice in industry itself. I would like to see it disappear overnight, but we know that it will not. However, it is a reasonable proposition that we should only have on the numerical strength those whom we can contain. It has been asked how we arrived at the figure. We arranged for 8,500, which included the special allowance for Malta.
Hon. Members have asked to be told the statistical basis on which this figure was arrived at. They have asked whether special surveys were carried out, and what prior consultations there were with local authorities, the T.U.C., employers' organisations, and so on. In a matter such as this, it is impossible to arrive at a decision with any mathematical precision. This is essentially an exercise of judgment by the Government. It is a political decision. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have said that this was approximately half the usual number. In preparing the White Paper we assumed that this was a fair and reasonable number, based on the information that we had, including the information that was provided by the Mountbatten Report.
Another question asked was how the limit was reconcilable with the forecast of labour shortages. We must think in terms of the circumstances in which a labour shortage may arise, and the nature of that shortage. The National Plan may not be specific on this point, but the fact is that the burning need in this country today—and my hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, East knows this as well as

I do—is for skilled labour. In every industry there is a demand for skilled labour. Indeed, all industrial societies today are finding that the demand for unskilled labour is falling all the time. One cannot fill the 200,000 vacancies for skilled workers, to which reference has been made, by the introduction of 200,000 unskilled workers.
The next point with which I should like to deal in regard to category B vouchers is the allegation that we are skimming off the cream of the Commonwealth. In a sense this is true. It would be a fine thing if every doctor, teacher and trained nurse from the Commonwealth either stayed in his own country or went to other underdeveloped countries if there was any surplus at all. That would be the ideal situation, but we have a right to look after our interests, too. If a Commonwealth country did not want to export its trained skilled people, it could easily put a stop to it. We export our brains, and we are blamed for that, and it is therefore reasonable that there should be some importation of brains and skill from the Commonwealth.
I think that there is a need for greater knowledge about the whole situation, because I should like to know how many of the trained nurses, doctors, and teachers, who come here go back to their own countries after six, seven, or eight years. The desire to come here originates from the immigrants themselves, and if their countries do not want to lose their skilled services they could take the appropriate steps to prevent them leaving, but I see no earthly reason why we, as British people, should not expect skilled people to make some contribution to our economy if they are desirous of doing so.
This has not been a debate on the economic problems involved in this question. It has been a debate on the social problems inherent in it. The question of unemployment does not come into this issue. The old fable that half the immigrants are on National Insurance is a lot of balderdash. The latest figures from my Ministry show that unemployment among immigrants is not a major problem today. On 1st November, there were only 7,016 adult immigrants unemployed in the country, which


is about 2·3 per cent. of the adult unemployed. Therefore, that is not the problem. What we are arguing in the White Paper, and the reason that we are asking for the Bill tonight, is that we require time to deal with these problems. Whatever may have been said in the House tonight, the country is, in many cases, bursting at the seams.
I know that there is a good deal of idealism behind many of the speeches which have been made tonight. Let it a ways be so, but let us always be mindful of the fact that there are deep rooted problems which time alone will cure. Mention has been made of the Welsh and the Scottish. It took a couple of generations for the Welsh people who came to Slough to make peace with their ancient enemies in England. Reading the Press in Slough when Welshmen were pouring into that area is indicative of the prejudices of today. The Welsh were called lazy and all manner of names, but they got over it. All we ask is that we be given time. I therefore commend the Bill to the Cemmittee.

Mr. Buchan: I had intended to speak only very briefly. I had three reasons for speaking tonight. The first is that I was asked last week by my hon. Friends to stay on in similar circumstances to make a two-minute intervention so I think that I am justified in asking them to stay on tonight to listen to me. My second reason is that we are dealing with a matter which goes right to the vitals and the core of democracy. The third is that I have been horrified, really horrified, by what I have heard from the benches opposite. I now have a fourth reason—the Minister of Labour's speech.
He said that he resented the suggestion that some hon. Members below the Gangway on this side have suggested that the Government Front Bench are tainted with racialism. With respect, I have not heard such a charge, but, since he has raised the matter, I think that there is a charge—not that the Government are tainted with racialism, but that they have capitulated to racialism. I think that the Committee will see in a moment that this is the real charge.
My right hon. Friend was right to say that we should look at this problem from a moral point of view, and he said, quite correctly. that he looks at it from a

Christian point of view. We are also entitled to point out that, when the Labour Party fought against all the implications of the Bill three years ago, it was largely on a moral and Christian basis that it was fought. When we look for the reasons for the change since then, many of us can see little beyond a capitulation to racialism.
We are told that it is a question of housing. I come from the most overcrowded city in Western Europe—the slums of Glasgow—and how many immigrants live there? It is not a problem there. It is not the presence of immigrants which has caused the housing chaos in Glasgow. It is not housing that is the reason for the present problem in England. It is the colour problem. This is what is causing the difficulty. For once the right hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Thorneycroft) was correct. After all, my country has been exporting 30,000 people a year to England, but I have not heard any complaints about it. The right hon. Member for Monmouth does not complain about the Scots people occupying houses in England—[An HON. MEMBER: "He does."] Well, he had better not say so in my area.
I am sorry that the Minister of Labour has gone, since he made a speech which I was about to answer. [Interruption.] I am right; he is not here. But there is another hon. Member missing, who ought to have known better than to be absent when we are having a debate on immigration, and it is about him also that I want to speak later. I refer to the hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Peter Griffiths).
2.30 a.m.
We are told it is a housing problem, a shortage because houses are being occupied by coloured immigrants. But if a coloured worker needs to occupy a house, cannot he also build one? We heard earlier about the problems of the hospitals and the Home Office figures of illness among the population. I know the position. But if an immigrant needs a hospital bed, they also man the hospitals. I was in a London hospital for three weeks last Easter. What would happen if we did not have our coloured nurses, doctors, ward maids and other medical workers? The hospital service in the South-East would collapse,


so that any members of the white population also who became ill would be in a sorry plight.
The Minister of Labour referred to the floodgates in his remarks. We could not open them, he said. But no one is asking for them to be opened. The immigration statistics follow the normal economic course of demand. Are not hon. Gentlemen opposite interested in the demands and law of the market? If the jobs are there the immigrants will seek them, but that has nothing to do with opening floodgates.
One hon. Gentleman opposite said earlier that 8,500 immigrants a year would represent a total of half a million dependents. That would be 40 apiece—not a family, a clan. We fought wars in Scotland with clans of smaller proportions.
My hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, East (Mr. Freeson) made a remarkable speech. I will comment on it later and make certain recommendations about it. For a start, his words should be engraved on the hearts of some of my right hon. Friends, or at least filed somewhere handy in their offices. My hon. Friend spoke about this business of cards being marked "coloured worker" when these "laddies" were sent out by the labour exchanges. I like these terms. "Laddie" sounds nice. So does "the little ones", which was used by the Joint Under-Secretary. It is not compassionate phrases we want, but some compassionate action. Since is was pointed out how humiliated these laddies might become if "C.W."—coloured worker—were stamped on their cards, what is the Minister of Labour doing about it? This is the question he should answer.
When hon. Members speak about statistics, they are told that it is impossible to arrive at a decision on a mathematical basis. If that is so, how have the Government arrived at the precise statistics mentioned in the White Paper —such as precisely 8,500 immigrants a year, with precisely 1,000 of them coming from Malta, leaving precisely 7,500 for the rest of the Commonwealth? We even have the exact figure of 15 per cent. per country. What could be more precise? We are, therefore, entitled to ask for the certain statistics on which the Government bases its case.
When we raise other matters the Minister of Labour says that this issue is not dealing with an economic problem. What about the 200,000 workers mentioned in the National Plan? "No," my right hon. Friend replies, because, he claims, we are dealing with a shortage of skilled workers, while these are unskilled. But, paragraph 5 of the White Paper states:
Category A is for applications by employers in this country who have a specific job to offer to a particular Commonwealth citizen".
There is no reference there to skilled workers. But the vacancy exists. They are there to fill it. It goes on:
Category B is for applications by Commonwealth citizens without a specific job to come to but with certain special qualifications (e.g. nurses, teachers, doctors) …
—in other words, skilled workers. Thus, my right hon. Friend's argument bears no relation whatever to the problem nor the facts we are discussing. He ended by saying, "Give us time, because we are bursting at the seams." We who live in Glasgow, which has been bursting at the seams for half a century, somehow cope with the situation without exacerbating the colour problem. We have other colour problems. A friend of mine looked at a television programme about mixed marriage—a Glasgow man. After a quarter of an hour he was still waiting for the mixed marriage to take place; the programme was only about black and white, and he was waiting for the orange-and-green marriage to take place.
I hope our own Front Bench will listen to just one warning tonight. It is that we cannot outflank the racialists. If we drop the number from 20,000 to 8,000, the demand will be to drop it to zero. That is precisely what has happened tonight—the hon. Members for Harborough (Mr. Farr), for Rugby (Mr. Wise) and for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Gurden) say "Let us close the door altogether." We cannot outflank the racialists. No matter how we try they will always outflank us. If it is zero next year, and we say "Don't accuse us of not being Christian, we have just dropped the figure to zero," we will be told that it is time to send these people back home.
There is a ghost hovering in this Chamber tonight. It is the ghost of Banquo missing from the banquet; it is the member for Smethwick. That is where it all


began—with the victory at Smethwick. There we had the same problem of housing as in the rest of the Midlands—we have been told that it is a housing problem. There we had the same problems of education and health as the rest of the Midlands—we have been told that it is an education and health problem. But what happened in the rest of the Midlands? There was a 2 per cent. swing to Labour, but, in Smethwick, a swing to the Tories of 7 per cent.
Why was that? It was because into this Galbraith syndrome of private affluence and public squalor was thrown two other factors, colour and its political exploitation. It was the political exploitation here that frightened many people; the articles which said that at last the Conservative Party had an instrument that could erode the traditional working-class support for the Labour Party, and Smethwick was the proof. A month later the hon. Member for Smethwick was telling the London Young Conservatives that a firm line on immigration would mean 20 more seats at the General Election. Has the Opposition Front Bench dissociated itself from the hon. Member's view? Have they said that they reject it? On the contrary, they are now beginning—not just the back benchers and the mad backwoodsmen who want to shut the door, but the whole of the Opposition Front Bench—to speak in similar terms?
The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South-West (Mr. Powell) is the man who rejects planning. He says we cannot plan industry, we cannot plan our economy, we cannot plan our incomes policy—that is far too difficult and complex. We must leave it to the market. But he says that we can plan human beings, the most complex and intricate of all things. The right hon. Gentleman says we can plan human beings. Even our sea-green incorruptible, the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, is swinging on to this immigration band wagon. And the cheers at the Caxton Hall two nights ago suggest that other elements of the party opposite are also beginning to swing on to that band wagon. I warn the Front Bench opposite. as I have warned our own: "You can't outflank the racialists." These people who are getting up at the Caxton Hall are the very people who will push you even further than you want to go. The only thing one can do with racialism is not

to capitulate to it or try to outflank it, but to fight it. As we go through the Rhodesian crisis, let no one be fooled that many Rhodesians have not been encouraged by the actions we have taken and the attitude towards immigration developing this country. This too we must keep in mind.
Still we see the Tory Party refusing to dissociate itself from those elements which are making the running. We see this developing not only in the febrile outpourings but in extremely intelligent documents with loaded questions such as, "Do you approve of coloured workers coming in as a source of cheap labour?" This is the kind of new mood which is coming into the racial question. There are dangerous people involved here. We in the Labour Party also have responsibility because we have failed to fight it and have capitulated. Let us be clear that it will strike at the vitals and the whole dynamic and core of the Labour Party if we give way on this.
We all know that the figures in the White Paper are designed to keep out coloured immigrants. We do not kid ourselves any more. No one can give us the argument that this applies to all Commonwealth immigrants; we know that it is designed against coloured immigrants. We are told that we should give time for this policy to develop, but all that does is to say that there is something wrong about coloured immigrants as such and so we give the argument to the racialists.
I was not one who laughed when my hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, East said, "I have said enough", but he did not say nearly enough. What he said was very much to the heart and core of what we need within the Labour Party. I hope that a copy of his speech will be sent to every Government office. I hope that a copy will be sent to No. 10 Downing Street, that a copy will be sent to the Ministry of Labour and a copy to the, Home Office. I hope that a copy will be sent to every council office throughout the length and breadth of the land.

Mr. Thorneycroft: The Amendment which I moved some few hours ago has been the occasion of a fairly wide debate. Despite some thin whispers of controversy which I seemed to detect in the last speech, I am not disposed to inflict on the Committee a further contribution,


although it would be a very valuable addition to the discussion which has taken place. As it was a technical one, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule agreed to.

Bill reported, without Amendment; read the Third time and passed.

Orders of the Day — AIR CORPORATIONS [MONEY]

Resolution reported,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to provide for the capital reconstruction of the British Overseas Airways Corporation, it is expedient to authorise—

A. The remission, on such terms as may be provided by the said Act, of any obligation of the Corporation to make payments under section 42 of the Finance Act 1956 or section 3 of the Air Corporations Act 1962, in respect of sums advanced under those sections before 1st April 1965;
B. The transfer to the Treasury, on such terms as may be so provided, of all rights and liabilities of the Corporation in respect of stock issued before 1st April 1965, under the Air Corporations Act 1949 or any enactment repealed by that Act, the treatment of that stock as if it had been created and issued under the National Loans Act 1939 and the payment out of the Consolidated Fund of any sums required by the Treasury for making payments to the Corporation under transitional provisions of the said Act of the present Session relating to that stock;
C. The payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any sums required by the Minister of Aviation for making payments to the Corporation on terms which provide for the making of payments to the Minister out of the profits and reserves of the Corporation, being sums and aggregate of which, taken together with the aggregate amount outstanding in respect of the principal of

moneys borrowed by the Corporation, does not exceed the limit imposed by section 12(1) of the said Act of 1949 as for the time being in force;
D. The payment out of the Consolidated Fund of any sums required to fulfil any guarantee by the Treasury in respect of foreign currency debts of the Corporation or of the British European Airways Corporation;
E. The payment into the Exchequer and the re-issue out of the Consolidated Fund of any sums required to be so paid or re-issued by virtue of any provision of the said Act of the present Session.

Resolution agreed to.

Orders of the Day — WELSH GRAND COMMITTEE

Ordered,
That for the remainder of the present Session the following paragraphs shall have effect: —

(1) There shall be a Standing Committee to be known as the Welsh Grand Committee to consider such specified matters relating exclusively to Wales and Monmouthshire as may be referred to them and to consist of all Members sitting for constituencies in Wales and Monmouthshire, together with not more than Five other Members to be nominated by the Committee of Selection, who shall have power from time to time to discharge the Members so nominated by them and to appoint others in substitution for those discharged;
(2) A Motion may be made by a Minister of the Crown at the commencement of Public Business, to be decided without amendment or debate, to the effect that a specified matter or matters relating exclusively to Wales and Monmouthshire be referred to the Welsh Grand Committee for their consideration;
(3) If such a Motion be agreed to, the Welsh Grand Committee shall consider the matter or matters to them referred on not more than Four days in a Session, and shall report only that they have considered the said matter or matters.—[Mrs. Harriet Slater.]

STAFFORDSHIRE MEDICAL SER VICE COMMITTEE (CHILD'S DEATH)

2.45 a.m.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mrs. Harriet Slater.]

Mr. Robert Edwards: apologise for keeping you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and the staff out of bed for another half an hour so early in the morning, but I have a duty to perform on behalf of my constituency. It is a duty relating to the difficulty of registering legitimate complaints against the Health Service. In particular, my purpose is to ventilate the tragic case of the death of a boy of five years of age.
I always dislike criticising dedicated people, and far be it for me to criticise the medical profession. They are dedicated people, overworked, harassed and, I think, underpaid. Nevertheless, in our democracy, we cannot allow them, as we often do, to live in ivory towers, above criticism and often above public accountability.
The case I want to draw the attention of the Ministry of Health to is the case of Thomas Gripton, a boy aged five, who died on 10th January, this year. This boy was the only child of Mr. and Mrs. Thomas Gripton, constituents of mine.
The boy felt ill on 14th December and a doctor was called in and the boy was treated for constipation. Later, the boy was worse and another doctor from the same practice came and treated him for tonsilitis. The boy was in great pain and so the father frantically went to the doctor's surgery and brought the doctor to his home. The boy was immediately taken to hospital and operated on. On 10th January, this little boy, who had lived for so few years, died from peritonitis. It is not for me to criticise what went wrong. I want to express no opinion. But you can imagine the dreadful nightmare of emotion which the parents went through. The husband, Mr. Thomas Gripton, was off work for five weeks in a state of nervous collapse. Ultimately, the parents thought that some investigation into the circumstances of their only child's death should be undertaken.
Mr. Gripton wrote to the clerk of the Staffordshire Executive Committee of the Ministry of Health on 12th February asking that the case should be investigated. That was one month and two days after the death of his son. He received a letter from the clerk on 25th March which stated that the committee noted that the complaint was more than two months out of date and found itself unable to accept as reasonable the grounds given by Mr. Gripton for delay. That was in reply to a very friendly letter, a pathetically friendly letter, from the father who just wanted his son's case investigated. The committee was there to see that justice was done in cases of this nature.
The committee gauged the time from the first visit of the doctor on 14th December rather than from 10th January when the boy died. Apparently it was within its rights according to the regulations, which state that complaints must be made within six weeks of the visit of the doctor. These seem to me to be fantastic regulations. How can one make a complaint if the person concerned is sick for many weeks and dies after the time for making a complaint has expired? It is clear that the regulations need amending.
Mr. Gripton came to see me and I wrote to the Minister. Unfortunately, I got the reply that one usually gets from Ministers. The Department did not want to go over the head of the committee. The Minister stated that the regulations laid down that there could be only six weeks' delay in reporting a complaint, and that nothing could be done. However, looking at the regulations I observed that, although complaints should be made within six weeks, the committee has the right to extend the period if the person complaining has been ill. The father was ill for five weeks, receiving medical attention and also sickness benefit based on medical certificates issued by the National Health Service. Yet the committee clerk did not bother to lift the telephone and inquire whether the complainant was ill. Had this been done, the case could have been investigated within the regulations.
One can make a complaint six months after receiving attention from a dentist, but in the case of the medical profession it is only six weeks. I tried to get this matter debated last session.
but I was not fortunate. Meanwhile, although I advised him to the contrary, my constituent still wanted this matter investigated.
These are good people, and Mr. Gripton is a skilled craftsman and hardworking man. But he felt that unless there was some machinery for complaints what had happened to his son could happen to others. Therefore, he wanted the matter pursued and even took legal action. The case was lost, and it is not for me to discuss the decision of the learned judges in the divisional court. However, it is monstrous that a workman should have to spend his hard-earned money going to law to get the death of his son, which occurred in very exceptional circumstances, investigated when there is machinery established for this purpose. So we are discussing the matter now. It is not a case of wanting to, and I am sure Mr. Gripton did not want to pursue this course. Doctors are human beings and, like everyone else, they make mistakes. It may be difficult to discover whether peritonitis, constipation and tonsilitis are related. I do not want to pass judgment, but there is a necessity for machinery to investigate the complaints which occasionally arise.
In my constituency, Councillor Wagstaff dared to criticise a doctor whose surgery was closed for four days over Whitsun. He did it legitimately and democratically in the local council and did not mention the name of the doctor or the place of the surgery. The doctor removed the councillor and his family from his panel. In another case a lady was involved in a car accident with the doctor's car. Unwillingly she was dragged into court to give evidence against her doctor and she was removed from the panel. There are a minority of doctors who seem to imagine they are above criticism and are not publicly accountable as are most public servants.
Therefore, I beg my hon. Friend to look at the case of Mr. Gripton's son very seriously. It is a human case of great tragedy. The boy cannot be brought back to life, but at least we can guarantee to the citizens whom we represent that if they feel aggrieved, as these parents do, there is some safety valve.
There is a maxim which says that justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done. In this case the parents, their neighbours and Mr. Gripton's workmates, feel that not only has justice not been seen to be done but that there has been no justice and no means of investigating a very serious charge which involved this good family in such a dreadful tragedy. I hope my hon. Friend will have a new look at the regulations so that cases of this description will never occur again.

3.0 a.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Charles Loughlin): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bilston (Mr. Robert Edwards) for raising tonight the question of the application of the time limits in the case of the complaint by Mr. Gripton about the treatment provided for his son. We had a debate on another medical service committee case about a fortnight ago, when my right hon. Friend said that the events leading up to the complaint against a general practitioner were often of a distressing character. The death of a young and only child is especially sad, and I can well appreciate the emotion with which my hon. Friend has been faced in presenting the case this morning. I should like to take the opportunity to express my deep sympathy with Mr. and Mrs. Gripton.
As my hon. Friend has said, the main facts of the case are clear. Mr. Gripton wrote to the Staffordshire Executive Council on 26th February saying that his son had been taken ill on 14th December and that when the doctor called Mrs. Gripton told him that she feared that the boy had appendicitis but that the doctor thought that it was no more than constipation. Mr. Gripton also said that another doctor, the partner of the first, called on 17th December and, as my hon. Friend rightly said, diagnosed septic tonsils. The second doctor had to be called again on 19th December when she obtained the boy's admission to hospital for an emergency operation for peritonitis, but, unfortunately, the little boy died on 10th January.
The executive council wrote to Mr. Gripton on 1st March explaining that the complaint had been made later than the six weeks allowed by the regulations for


making complaints and that his complaint could riot be considered unless he could show reasonable cause for the delay. He replied saying that he had been ill for five weeks and had still been suffering from shock after that and that his wife had still not recovered from the shock. The correspondence was then put before the medical service committee of the Staffordshire Executive Council and, on 23rd March, the clerk wrote again to Mr. Gripton saying that the committee noted that the complaint was more than two months out of date—though strictly that should have read more than two months after the event—and that the committee found itself unable to accept as reasonable the ground which he gave for the delay. Mr. Gripton then consulted a solicitor who also corresponded with the executive council. I will deal with that matter later.
The service committee procedure is domestic to the National Health Service, but it can result in a practitioner being judged to be in breach of his terms of service, that is, of having failed to comply with his contract with the executive council and, in some cases, in withholdings being made from his remuneration. Because of this, it is necessary that there should be rules governing the way in which matters are referred to and dealt with by the committee to ensure that justice is done and seen to be done. The rules are laid down in the National Health Service (Service Committees and Tribunal) Regulations.
A doctor cannot be held to be at fault solely by virtue of his failing to come to the right conclusion about the nature of a disorder or right treatment to prescribe, as he is no more infallible than other men.
At the other extreme nobody could possibly accept incompetent or negligent care as a satisfactory standard of treatment under the National Health Service. What can be expected of a doctor is that he should maintain the standards which n ordinary, reasonable practitioner could be expected to maintain. This is the standard that is expected in the National Health Service, and it is the criterion by which the services committee is guided when it is investigating a complaint that a doctor is in breach of his terms of service.
The first purpose of the service committee procedure is to investigate the allegations made by the complainant so as to establish the facts on which a decision can be made. The longer the delay between the event and the investigation, the more difficult it becomes to establish the facts. It is easier for the complainant to remember the facts, as it is his own case, than for the practitioner, who is treating many people every day. There must also be some limit to the time during which a practitioner can be asked to account for his actions on a particular occasion. There must, therefore, be some limit after which the complaint cannot be investigated. Under the regulations, the normal time for a complaint against a general practitioner is six weeks after the event which gave rise to the complaint. There are times when, with the best will in the world, a person is unable to make a complaint within this period, and it would not be right to make an absolute bar at this point.
The Regulations also provide that the service committee may investigate a complaint if it is satisfied that the delay in lodging it is due to illness or other reasonable cause, provided it is made within two months after the event or, if it is later still, it may so decide only if the consent of the general practitioner or the Minister's consent is obtained in addition. My hon. Friend will notice that the decision whether a complaint that is made after more than six weeks should be investigated is for the service committee to make, and that there is no appeal to the Minister from its decision. He is only asked for his consent to the service committee investigating the case if it is satisfied that there was reasonable cause, and, in practice, only when the complaint is made more than two months after the event and the practitioner has not given his consent to the investigation.
When the Staffordshire Medical Service Committee came to consider Mr. Gripton's complaint, it decided that the events which gave rise to the complaint were the visits of the general practitioners between 14th and 19th December. On this view Mr. Gripton's complaint was made more than six weeks after the event and could therefore only be investigated by the service committee if it was satisfied that there was reasonable cause for the delay. As I said earlier, the decision


whether there was reasonable cause was a matter solely for the service committee. I should explain here that some of the members of the committee are laymen and some are doctors. I would not wish to enter into a discussion whether the Staffordshire Medical Service Committee came to the right conclusion in this case, as the service committee procedure is the statutory method of investigating complaints and the regulations governing the procedure leave the matter to the opinion of the committee and give my right hon. Friend no part in it.
When my right hon. Friend wrote to the Minister I know that he may have been disappointed by the reply he received. I can assure him that my Minister gave a reply in the terms of the regulations, and I feel sure that my hon. Friend will accept that he is a very sympathetic and understanding person. The reason for the disappointing reply was solely that he had no power to go outside the regulations. I will only say that the composition of the committee is specifically designed to ensure that the body which considers these difficult questions combines the viewpoint of persons outside the profession with the specialised knowledge which is only available within it.
The solicitor whom Mr. Gripton consulted challenged the decision of the medical services committee on two points: the first was the date of the event which gave rise to the complaint which the Committee had taken to be some time in the middle of December when the general practitioner visited Mr. Gripton's son—and the second was whether it had considered the case in the manner required by the regulations. Following this correspondence, an application was made on behalf of Mr. Gripton to the High Court directed to requiring the service committee to consider the complaint. The application was heard last week and was refused.
The question might be asked whether the normal period of six weeks for making complaints is long enough. I am aware that this question causes concern to many people, and my right hon.

Friend is, in fact, in the course of examining the time limit, together with other aspects of the service committee procedure, with the representatives of the medical profession as part of the negotiations that are now taking place on the Doctors' Charter. My hon. Friend will, I am sure, not wish to press me to say more than that at this stage.
If I may, I will for a moment touch on the other matter raised by my hon. Friend, the removal of a patient's name from a doctor's list. I have had a number of these cases, and they are very difficult, particularly when the doctor not merely strikes off the individual concerned but, in one case that was cited, strikes off the family, too. It is a problem, and an executive council has no discretion in this matter. The right of a doctor to remove a patient from his list is, of course, complementary to the patient's right to change his doctor. If a doctor applies to have a patient's name removed from his list the executive council must comply with his request, and no other arrangement would work because confidence and good will on both sides are essential to the relations between doctor and patient. The executive council will, if there is need, arrange for another practitioner to take the patient on to his list.
My hon. Friend wrote to the Minister about Mr. Gripton's complaint and some of what I have said tonight was explained to him then. But I am sure that the debate tonight has been valuable. It comes at a time when a lot of thought is being given to the general practitioner service. I shall tell my right hon. Friend about the points that my hon. Friend made in his speech, and I am sure he will consider them further with other aspects of the procedure.
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this matter. I think it is right that it should have been raised. I noticed that he apologised in the first part of his speech. If he intended part of that apology for me, I can tell him that he has no need to apologise at all.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at fourteen minutes past Three o'clock a.m.